Availability Analysis and Disparity Study for the Arizona Department of Transportation M A R C H 1 6, 2 0 0 9 FINAL REPORT Submitted to: Mr. Tom Moore Arizona Department of Transportation Civil Rights Office 1135 North 22nd Avenue MailDrop 154A Phoenix, AZ 85009 Submitted by: Availability Analysis and Disparity Study for the Arizona Department of Transportation Submitted to: Mr. Tom Moore Arizona Department of Transportation Civil Rights Office 1135 North 22nd Avenue MailDrop 154A Phoenix, AZ 85009 Submitted by: 2123 Centre Pointe Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32308-4930 March 16, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. E-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.0 LEGAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 3.0 Background ............................................................................................ 1-1 Overview of Study Approach .................................................................. 1-1 Report Organization ............................................................................... 1-2 Introduction ............................................................................................ 2-1 An Overview of the Applicable Case Law ............................................... 2-2 Standards of Review for Race-Specific and Gender-Specific Programs ............................................................................................... 2-3 To Withstand Strict Scrutiny, an MBE/DBE Program Must Be Based on Evidence Showing a Compelling Governmental Interest ................... 2-5 The Governmental Entity or Agency Enacting an MBE Program Must Be Shown to Have Actively or Passively Perpetuated the Discrimination ......................................................................................... 2-7 Anecdotal Evidence of Discrimination in Disparity Studies ..................... 2-8 To Withstand Strict Scrutiny, an MBE Program Must Be Narrowly Tailored to Remedy Identified Discrimination ......................................... 2-9 “As Applied” Challenge in Western States Paving ................................ 2-12 Small Business Procurement Preferences ........................................... 2-14 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 2-15 REVIEW OF CONTRACTING POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND PROGRAMS .....3-1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 Methodology ........................................................................................... 3-1 Authorization and Delegation of Responsibility ....................................... 3-3 Purchasing Policies ................................................................................ 3-3 Construction ........................................................................................... 3-4 Professional Services ................................................................................ 3-5 Bonding and Insurance.............................................................................. 3-6 Vendor Registration and Pre-qualification ................................................. 3-7 Bidder Responsibility ................................................................................. 3-8 Vendor Relations ....................................................................................... 3-9 Prompt Payment ........................................................................................ 3-9 Remedial Programs ................................................................................. 3-10 DBE Goal Setting .................................................................................... 3-10 DBE Reporting......................................................................................... 3-12 DBE Certification ..................................................................................... 3-12 The Civil Rights Office ............................................................................. 3-13 Office of Equal Opportunity and Equity in State Contracting ................... 3-13 Nondiscrimination in Contracting ............................................................. 3-13 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE 3.0 REVIEW OF CONTRACTING POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND PROGRAMS (Continued) ........................................................................................................3-1 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 4.0 RELEVANT MARKET AREA, UTILIZATION, AND AVAILABILITY ANALYSES..... 4-1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 5.0 Methodology ........................................................................................... 5-1 Disparity Indices and T-Test Results ...................................................... 5-3 STATISTICAL DISPARITY IN SMALL BUSINESS CREDIT MARKETS ............. 6-1 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 7.0 Methodology ........................................................................................... 4-1 Federal Construction Contracts .............................................................. 4-8 Architecture and Engineering ............................................................... 4-19 Professional Services .............................................................................. 4-27 Other Service........................................................................................... 4-33 Goods and Supplies ................................................................................ 4-39 Summary ................................................................................................. 4-45 DISPARITY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 5.2 6.0 Small Business Enterprise ....................................................................... 3-14 Financial Assistance Programs ............................................................... 3-14 Bonding and Insurance Assistance ......................................................... 3-15 Management and Technical Assistance .................................................. 3-15 Outreach .................................................................................................. 3-19 Introduction ............................................................................................ 6-1 Lending Discrimination and the Factual Predicate for M/WBE Programs .... 6-1 Review of the Economic Literature ......................................................... 6-2 Statistical Analysis ..................................................................................... 6-7 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 6-14 PRIVATE SECTOR AND NON-GOAL ANALYSES ............................................7-1 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 State Subcontractor Analysis ................................................................. 7-2 Program Suspension and M/WBE Utilization on Federally Funded Projects .................................................................................................. 7-4 Non-Goal Analysis .................................................................................. 7-4 Private Sector Utilization Analysis by Race/Gender/Ethnicity of Business Ownership for Construction Subcontractors ............................ 7-7 Regression Analysis of Survey Data ........................................................ 7-7 Private Sector Disparities in Construction and Professional Services .. 7-14 PUMS Analysis of Race/Gender/Ethnicity Effects on SelfEmployment Propensity and Earnings .................................................. 7-17 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE 7.0 PRIVATE SECTOR AND NON-GOAL ANALYSES (Continued) .........................7-1 7.8 8.0 ANECDOTAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................................8-1 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 9.0 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 7-31 Methodology ........................................................................................... 8-1 Telephone Survey Demographics .......................................................... 8-5 Procurement Process ........................................................................... 8-13 Financing ................................................................................................. 8-24 Conducting Business with ADOT as a Subcontractor ............................. 8-31 Subcontracting Experience...................................................................... 8-35 Discrimination .......................................................................................... 8-39 DBE Program .......................................................................................... 8-52 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 8-55 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................9-1 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 Findings and Recommendations for Prime Contracting .......................... 9-1 Findings for Subcontracting .................................................................... 9-4 Findings for Race-Neutral Alternatives ................................................... 9-7 DBE Program Findings .............................................................................. 9-8 Recommendations..................................................................................... 9-9 Selected Best Practices........................................................................... 9-12 APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F: Appendix G: Appendix H: Appendix I: Utilized Prime and Subcontractors Availability Regression Analysis PUMS Regression Analysis Telephone Survey of Area Businesses Anecdotal/Personal Interviews Guide Focus Group Guide Public Hearing Advertisement Public Hearing Overview Format EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In July 2007, MGT of America, Inc. (MGT), was retained to conduct a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Disparity Study for Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to determine whether there was a compelling interest to justify a disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) program for ADOT. MGT found that minority, women and disadvantaged business enterprises (M/W/DBEs) were substantially underutilized as prime contractors in construction and construction-related professional services. African American, Hispanic American and Asian-owned firms were under-utilized as construction subcontractors. The study provides factual predicate evidence for the selective use of project goals for African American, Hispanic American and Asian American construction subcontractors. More detailed findings and recommendations, along with associated best practices are located in Chapter 9.0 of this report. FINDING E.1: M/W/DBE Prime Utilization and Availability Over the current study period (July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007) in the relevant market, the following took place:  Seven M/W/DBEs won 27 prime construction contracts for $31.3 million on ADOT projects (1.28 percent of the total).  Eighteen M/W/DBEs won 65 prime architecture and engineering (A&E) contracts for $36.5 million on ADOT projects (14.15 percent of the total). M/W/DBEs constituted 8.6 percent of ADOT prime construction bidders and 24.03 percent of ADOT prime A&E vendors. Disparity existed for all M/W/DBE prime contractors, except for Asian American A&E prime contractors. FINDING E-2: M/W/DBE Subcontractor Utilization and Availability Over the current study period in the relevant market, the following took place:  One hundred and five M/W/DBEs construction subcontractors won 1,236 construction subcontracts for $191.6 million on ADOT projects (23.9 percent of the total). Certified DBEs averaged 8.34 percent of construction subcontracts on federally subsidized projects.  Six M/W/DBEs won 9 A&E subcontracts for $1.1 million on ADOT projects (44.9 percent of total A&E subcontracts). M/W/DBEs constituted 15.6 percent of construction subcontractors and 27 percent of A&E subcontractors. MGT of America, Inc. Page E-1 Findings and Recommendations FINDING E-3: M/W/DBE Utilization on Non-Goal Projects ADOT does not place goals on state-funded projects and on certain federally-funded projects. Sixty-seven M/W/DBE construction subcontractors won $22.1 million, 18.49 percent of ADOT spending on state-funded projects over the study period. Sixty-three M/W/DBE construction subcontractors won $49.4 million, 26 percent of ADOT spending on federally-funded projects without DBE goals over the study period. ADOT suspended the use of race conscious project goals in January 2006 following the Ninth Circuit decision in Western State Paving v. Washington DOT. M/W/DBE subcontractor spending in percentage terms did fall significantly in 2007, the first year of the suspension of DBE project goals. M/W/DBE construction subcontractor spending averaged $33.2 million, 24.9 percent of total spending with subcontractors on federally subsidized projects, from 2002 through 2006.1 In the FY2007 M/W/DBE subcontractors won $25.5 million in subcontracts, 18.9 percent of total spending with subcontractors on federally subsidized projects. The biggest drop came for Native American-owned firms that fell from an average of 8.8 percent to about 0.1 percent in FY2007. Certified DBE construction subcontractor utilization on federally subsidized projects fell from an average of 9.49 percent on subcontracts in the relevant market to 2.06 percent in FY2007. FINDING E-4: Disparities in Census Measures of Firm Sales and Availability Using data from the 2002 Survey of Business Owners, substantial disparities were found between the availability of construction and professional services firms owned by women and minorities with paid employees and their sales. For both construction and professional services firms, sales per firm for each ethnic/gender group were generally between 30 and 60 percent of the market place average. FINDING E-5: Disparities in Self-Employment and Revenue Earnings In general, findings from the U.S. Bureau of the Census Public Use Micro Sample (PUMS) 2000 data for the state of Arizona indicated that there were statistically significant disparities in entry into and earnings from self-employment by women and minorities after controlling for education, age, wealth, and other variables. RECOMMENDATION E-1: DBE Project Goal Setting The evidence supporting the immediate restoration of race- and gender conscious DBE project goals in construction is mixed. There was still disparity for certain groups of minority construction subcontractors during the study period. Since the suspension of DBE goals, there has been a decline in M/W/DBE construction subcontractor utilization. Moreover, there is presented in Chapter 7.0, considerable statistical and anecdotal evidence of barriers in the private sector markets associated with race and gender after controlling for capacity variables. However, there was also evidence during the study period of utilization of M/W/DBEs on state-funded contracts and federally-funded 1 Based on Exhibit 4-10 in Chapter 4.0. MGT of America, Inc. Page E-2 Findings and Recommendations construction projects without DBE goals. A summary of the relevant disparity evidence follows at the end of this executive summary. ADOT should closely monitor DBE construction subcontractor utilization. ADOT should consider selectively placing race-conscious goals on projects, particularly large projects where there is demonstrated availability. On construction projects that are procured through a request for proposal (RFP) process and are not purely low bid, ADOT should request bidders’ history in contracting with DBEs. This study recommends a DBE goal of 8.0 percent with 4.9 percent being achieved through race neutral means and 3.1 percent through race conscious means. This DBE goal covers construction and A&E. African American, Hispanic American and Asian American construction firms should be eligible for race conscious goals for construction projects. African American, Hispanic American, Native American, Asian American and Nonminority Women owned A&E firms should be eligible for race conscious goals for A&E. RECOMMENDATION E-2: Small Business Program ADOT should consider establishing a small contractors program. A strong small business program is central to maintaining a narrowly tailored program to promote DBE utilization. Guidance on small business programs can be found in features of other small business programs around the United States, including:         Setting aside contracts up to $500,000 for small business. Modifying prequalification requirements for small contracts. Lowering bid bonds to a specific amount, rather than a percentage. Providing bid preferences to small businesses in bidding on contracts. Setting small businesses goals on formal and informal contracts. Setting department goals for small businesses. Access to low cost insurance on small contracts. Making small businesses utilization a part of department performance review. Summary of Disparity Evidence Exhibit E-1 below summarizes disparities found in chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7. The table also indicates where capacity is controlled for either (1) econometrically, (2) through controls for contract size, (3) through controls for prime versus subcontractor status, (4) through controls for bidder availability, or (5) through demonstrated capacity on goal projects. Exhibit E-1 provides the core of the factual predicate for the participation of African American, Hispanic American and Asian American firms in race-conscious DBE goals for construction. Exhibit E-2 provides a summary of disparity information for A&E. MGT of America, Inc. Page E-3 Findings and Recommendations EXHIBIT E-1 SUMMARY TABLE OF DISPARITY EVIDENCE CONSTRUCTION ADOT 2008 DISPARITY STUDY Prime Contractor Disparity (bidder availability) Disparity Small Prime Contracts (<$1 million) Disparity in Dollar Value of Construction Subcontracts Disparity in Number of Construction Subcontracts Regression Analysis on ADOT Construction Vendor Earnings (controlling for capacity variables) African Hispanic Asian Americans Americans Americans ADOT Goal Projects Analysis No Yes No Availability Availability Native Americans Women Yes Yes No Availability Yes No Availability Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Not statistically significant Not statistically significant Yes Source: 2008 ADOT Disparity Study Chapters 4.0, 5.0, and 7.0. MGT of America, Inc. Page E-4 Findings and Recommendations EXHIBIT E-1 (Continued) SUMMARY TABLE OF DISPARITY EVIDENCE CONSTRUCTION ADOT 2008 DISPARITY STUDY Disparity in Dollar Value of Construction Subcontracts (State Funded Projects) Disparity in Dollar Value of Construction Subcontracts (Federal Projects With No DBE Goals) Disparity For Census Construction Firms with Paid Employees in marketplace (Census Dollars) Disparity in Entry into Construction Self Employment (controlling for capacity variables) Disparity in Earnings From Construction Self Employment (controlling for capacity variables) Disparity for Prime Contractors in Phoenix Private Marketplace (Reed Construction, Dollars, relative to goal projects) Disparity for Subcontractors in Phoenix Private Marketplace (Building Permits, Dollars, relative to goal projects) Disparity in Small Business Credit (controlling for capacity variables) African Hispanic Asian Americans Americans Americans Non Goal Projects Analysis Yes Yes Yes Native Americans Women No No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not statistically significant Yes Yes Yes Yes Not statistically significant Not statistically significant Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not statistically significant Not statistically significant Not statistically significant Not statistically significant Source: 2008 ADOT Disparity Study Chapters 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0. MGT of America, Inc. Page E-5 Findings and Recommendations EXHIBIT E-2 SUMMARY TABLE OF DISPARITY EVIDENCE A&E ADOT 2008 DISPARITY STUDY Prime A&E Disparity (bidder availability) Disparity Small Prime Contracts (<$1 million) Disparity in Dollar Value of A&E Subcontracts Disparity in Number of A&E Subcontracts Disparity For Suspension Period Disparity For Census A&E Firms with Paid Employees in M(Census Dollars) Disparity in Entry into A&E Self Employment (controlling for capacity variables) Disparity in Earnings From A&E Self Employment (controlling for capacity variables) Disparity in Small Business Credit (controlling for capacity variables) African Hispanic Asian Americans Americans Americans ADOT Goal Projects Analysis Yes Yes No Native Americans Women Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No No No Non Goal Projects Analysis Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not statistically significant Not statistically significant Yes Yes Not statistically significant Not statistically significant Not statistically significant Not statistically significant Source: 2008 ADOT Disparity Study Chapters 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0. MGT of America, Inc. Page E-6 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background In July 2007, the State of Arizona’s Department of Transportation contracted with MGT to conduct a disparity and availability study. The purpose of the disparity study was to determine whether minority-owned and disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs) were underutilized in ADOT’s transportation design and construction programs. Governmental entities like ADOT have authorized disparity studies in response to the 1995 Supreme Court Case of Adarand Constructors, Inc v. Pena.1 The (Adarand) decision determined whether there is a compelling interest for remedial procurement programs. The (Adarand) decision also determined that federal DBE programs should be examined by the same strict scrutiny standard used for state and local programs Also, recommendations resulting from the disparity study are used to narrowly tailor any resulting program to specifically address findings of underutilization attributable to unfair business practices. This report is also motivated by the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Western States paving, which ruled that the State of Washington DOT DBE program was not narrowly tailored “as applied.” Subsequent to this ruling the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued guidance to FHWA grant recipients on the information needed in light of the Western States Paving decision. 1.2 Overview of Study Approach MGT followed a carefully designed work plan that allowed study team members to fully analyze availability, utilization, and disparity with regard to DBE participation. Our approach has been tested in over 110 disparity studies and proven reliable to meet our objectives. The final work plan included the following major tasks:  Conducting a legal review.  Establishing data parameters.  Reviewing policies, procedures, and programs.  Conducting market area and utilization analyses.  Determining the availability of qualified firms.  Analyzing the utilization and availability data for disparity and statistical significance.  Conducting a telephone survey, one on one interviews, focus groups, and a public hearing. 1 th Adarand v. Pena, 790 F. Supp.240, 16 F.3d 1537 (10 Cir.(1996), cert. granted, 63 U.S.L.W. 3213 (U.S. Oct. 4, 1996) (No.63-12), 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995). MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-1 Introduction 1.3  Conducting a statistically valid regression analysis.  Conducting disparity analyses of the relevant private market.  Collecting and analyzing anecdotal information.  Identifying narrowly tailored race- and gender-based remedies.  Preparing the final report for this study. Report Organization In addition to this introductory chapter, this report consists of:  Chapter 2.0 – an overview of controlling legal precedents that impact remedial procurement programs.  Chapter 3.0 – a review of the ADOT’s procurement policies and procedures and an analysis of its DBE program and race- and gender-neutral efforts.  Chapter 4.0 – a description of the methodology used to determine ADOT’s relevant market area and a statistical analysis of vendor utilization by ADOT and the availability of firms for procurement activities.  Chapter 5.0 – a discussion of the levels of disparity for prime contractors and subcontractors and a review of the multivariate analysis.  Chapter 6.0 – a statistical analysis of disparity in small business credit markets.  Chapter 7.0 – an analysis of the presence of disparity in the private sector and its effect on the ability of firms to win procurement contracts from ADOT.  Chapter 8.0 – an analysis of anecdotal data collected from the telephone survey and personal interviews.  Chapter 9.0 – a summary of the findings presented in previous chapters as well as conclusions, commendations, and recommendations. We recommend reading the report in its entirety to understand the basis for the recommendations presented in Chapter 9.0. MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-2 2.0 LEGAL BACKGROUND 2.0 LEGAL BACKGROUND 2.1 Introduction This chapter provides legal background for the study. The material that follows does not constitute legal advice to the State of Arizona on minority business programs, disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) programs, affirmative action, or any other matter. Instead, it provides a context for the statistical and anecdotal analysis that appears in subsequent chapters of this report. The Supreme Court decision in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company 1 and later cases have established and applied the constitutional standards for an affirmative action program. This chapter identifies and discusses those decisions, summarizing how courts evaluate the constitutionality of race-specific and gender-specific programs. Decisions of the Ninth Circuit, which includes the state of Arizona, offer the most directly binding authority, but where those decisions leave issues unsettled, the review considers decisions from other circuits. By way of a preliminary outline, the courts have determined that an affirmative action program involving governmental procurement of goods or services must meet the following standards:  A remedial race-conscious program is subject to strict judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Strict scrutiny has two basic components: a compelling governmental interest in the program and narrow tailoring of the program. To survive the strict scrutiny standard, a remedial race-conscious program must be based on a compelling governmental interest. “Compelling interest” means the government must prove past or present racial discrimination requiring remedial attention. There must be a specific “strong basis in the evidence” for the compelling governmental interest. Statistical evidence is preferred and possibly necessary as a practical matter; anecdotal evidence is permissible and can offer substantial support, but it probably cannot stand on its own. Program(s) designed to address the compelling governmental interest must be narrowly tailored to remedy the identified discrimination. “Narrow tailoring” means the remedy must fit the findings. 1 Richmond v. Croson, 488 U.S. 469 (1989). MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-1 Legal Background The evidence showing compelling interest must guide the tailoring very closely. Race-neutral alternatives must be considered first. A lesser standard, intermediate judicial scrutiny, applies to programs that establish gender preferences. To survive the intermediate scrutiny standard, the remedial genderconscious program must serve important governmental objectives and be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. The evidence does not need to be as strong and the tailoring does not need to be as specific under the lesser standard. An even lower standard, the rational relationship test, applies to race neutral programs that apply preferences to small business. Small business is not a “suspect classification” and small business programs need only be rationally related to the promotion of small business development. 2.2 An Overview of the Applicable Case Law The discussion in this review will attend closely to the most relevant decisions in the area of government contracting. Justice O‟Connor, distinguishing her majority opinion on affirmative action in law school admissions from her opinions in government contracting cases, wrote: Context matters when reviewing race-based governmental action under the Equal Protection Clause. . . . Not every decision influenced by race is equally objectionable and strict scrutiny is designed to provide a framework for carefully examining the importance and the sincerity of the reasons advanced by the governmental decisionmaker for the use of race in that particular context.2 Further, some caution must be exercised in relying upon opinions of the federal district courts, which make both findings of fact and holdings of law. As to holdings of law, the district courts are ultimately subject to rulings by their circuit courts. As to matters of fact, their decisions depend heavily on the precise record before them, in these cases frequently including matters such as evaluations of the credibility and expertise of witnesses. Such findings are not binding precedents outside their districts, even if they may indicate the kind of evidence and arguments that might succeed elsewhere. Finally, the ways in which state and local governments participate in federal DBE programs is a specialized issue distinct from that of supporting municipal programs, even if the same kinds of evidence and same levels of review apply. In Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña,3 the Supreme Court did decide that federal DBE programs should be examined by the same strict scrutiny standard that Croson mandated for state and local programs. Nevertheless, 2 3 Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. at 327 Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-2 Legal Background cases considering federal DBE programs have many important distinctions from cases considering municipal programs, particularly when it comes to finding a compelling governmental interest. Thus, the majority of this review will be based on decisions of the federal circuit courts applying Croson and Adarand to state and local programs designed to increase participation by DBEs in government contracting. That is not a large body of case law. While other cases are useful as to particular points, only a handful of circuit court cases have reviewed strictly local DBE programs and given clear, specific, and binding guidance on the adequacy of a complete factual record including thorough, local disparity studies with at least some statistical analysis. 2.3 Standards of Review for Race-Specific and Gender-Specific Programs 2.3.1 Race-Specific Programs: The Croson Decision Croson established the framework for testing the validity of programs based on racial discrimination. In 1983, the Richmond City Council adopted a Minority Business Utilization Plan (the Plan) following a public hearing in which seven citizens testified about historical societal discrimination. In adopting the Plan, the Council also relied on a study indicating that “while the general population of Richmond was 50 percent African American, only 0.67 percent of the city‟s prime construction contracts had been awarded to minority businesses in the five-year period from 1978 to 1983.”4 The evidence before the Council also established that a variety of state and local contractor associations had little or no minority business membership. The Council relied on statements by a Council member whose opinion was that “the general conduct of the construction industry in this area, the state, and around the nation, is one in which race discrimination and exclusion on the basis of race is widespread.” 5 There was, however, no direct evidence of racial discrimination on the part of the city in its contracting activities, and no evidence that the city‟s prime contractors had discriminated against minority-owned subcontractors.6 The Plan required the city‟s prime contractors to subcontract at least 30 percent of the dollar amount of each contract to one or more minority-owned business enterprises (MBEs). The Plan did not establish any geographic limits for eligibility. Therefore, an otherwise qualified MBE from anywhere in the United States could benefit from the 30 percent set-aside. J.A. Croson Company, a non-MBE mechanical plumbing and heating contractor, filed a lawsuit against the City of Richmond, alleging that the Plan was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. After a considerable record of litigation and appeals, the Fourth Circuit struck down the Richmond Plan and the Supreme Court affirmed this decision.7 The Supreme Court determined that strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard of judicial review for MBE programs, so that a race-conscious program must be based on a compelling governmental interest and be narrowly tailored to 4 Croson, 488 U.S. at 479-80. Id. at 480. 6 Id. 7 Id. at 511. 5 MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-3 Legal Background achieve its objectives.8 This standard requires a firm evidentiary basis for concluding that the under-utilization of minorities is a product of past discrimination. 2.3.2 Gender-Specific Programs The Supreme Court has not addressed the specific issue of a gender-based classification in the context of a woman-owned business enterprise (WBE) program. Croson was limited to the review of an MBE program. In evaluating gender-based classifications, the Court has used what some call “intermediate scrutiny,” a less stringent standard of review than the “strict scrutiny” applied to race-based classifications. Intermediate scrutiny requires that classifying persons on the basis of sex “must carry the burden of showing an „exceedingly persuasive justification‟ for the classification.”9 The classification meets this burden “only by showing at least that the classification serves „important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed; are „substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.‟”10 Several federal circuit courts have applied intermediate scrutiny to WBE programs and yet have found the programs to be unconstitutional. 11 Indeed, one court has questioned the concept that it might be easier to establish a WBE program than it is to establish an MBE program.12 Nevertheless, in Coral Construction v. King County, the Ninth Circuit upheld a WBE program under the intermediate scrutiny standard. 13 Even using intermediate scrutiny, the court in Coral Construction noted that some degree of discrimination must be demonstrated in a particular industry before a gender-specific remedy may be instituted in that industry. As the court stated, “The mere recitation of a benign, compensatory purpose will not automatically shield a gender-specific program from constitutional scrutiny.”14 In Monterrey Mechanical the Ninth Circuit also cited the “exceedingly persuasive” standard in striking down a university contracting goals program for minorities and women. 15 In Western States Paving the Ninth Circuit stated that although the gender-conscious elements of the DBE regulations were subject to intermediate scrutiny, the race-conscious element met the standard of strict scrutiny; therefore, both race and gender elements of the program were discussed under the same strict scrutiny standard.16 8 For government contracting programs, courts have yet to find a compelling governmental interest for affirmative action other than remedying discrimination in the relevant marketplace. In other arenas diversity has served as a compelling government interest for affirmative action. For example, the Ninth circuit upheld race-based admission standards at an experimental elementary school in order to provide a more real world education experience. Hunter th v. Regents of Univ. of California, 190 F.3d 1061 (9 Cir. 1999). The Ninth Circuit in Western States Paving did not consider any other compelling interests for the DBE program outside of remedying discrimination and its effects. th Western State Paving v. Washington DOT, 407 F.3d 983 (9 Cir. 2005). 9 Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 724 (1982) (quoting Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 446 U.S. 142, 150 (1981)); see also United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 531 (1996), Nguyen v. U.S., 533 U.S. 53, 60 (2001). 10 Mississippi Univ. for Women, supra, at 724 (quoting Wengler v. Druggists Mut. Ins. Co. (1980)); see also Virginia, supra, at 533, Nguyen, supra, at 60. 11 th See, e.g., Engineering Contractors Ass’n of South Florida, Inc. v. Dade County, 122 F.3d 895 (11 Cir. 1997); th Builders Ass’n of Greater Chicago v. County of Cook, 256 F.3d 642 (7 Cir. 2001). 12 Builders Ass’n of Greater Chicago, 256 F.3d at 644. 13 th Coral Construction v. King County, 941 F.2d 910 (9 Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1033 (1992). The Tenth Circuit, on the second appeal in Concrete Works of Colorado v. City of Denver (Concrete Works IV), approved the constitutionality of a WBE program based on evidence comparable to that supporting an MBE program that the court also upheld in the same decision. Unlike Coral Construction, however, Concrete Works IV offered no independent guidance on the level of evidence required to support a WBE program. 14 Coral Construction, 941 F.2d at 932. 15 th Monterrey Mechanical v. Wilson, 125 F.3d 702, 712 (9 Cir. 1997); see also AGCC v. City and County of San th Francisco, 813 F.2d 922, 940 (9 Cir. 1987). 16 Western State Paving v. Washington DOT, 407 F.3d at n.4. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-4 Legal Background 2.3.3 Adarand and Federally Funded Projects As noted above, federal DBE programs are now governed by the constitutional standards set in the 1995 Supreme Court case of Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (Adarand III). 17 Adarand III involved a challenge to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) DBE program under which prime contractors could be awarded financial bonuses for subcontracting with DBEs. Without ruling on the merits of the case, the Court overturned its prior decision in Fullilove v. Klutznick,18 in which the Court had adopted intermediate scrutiny standard for congressionally mandated race-conscious programs. The Supreme Court in Adarand decided that federal DBE programs should be examined by the same strict scrutiny standard used for state and local programs. 19 At the same time, the Court restated the principal that “strict in theory” is not “fatal in fact.” In January 1999, USDOT published its final DBE rule in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 26 (49 CFR 26) that addressed the Adarand decisions. In the last round of the Adarand litigation, the Court of Appeals in the Tenth Circuit upheld the revised USDOT DBE program as modified by the new regulations in 49 CFR 26 in Adarand v. Slater. The Court reaffirmed that Congress had found a compelling interest for the DBE program. Adarand v. Slater was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which in turn dismissed the writ of certiorari as improperly granted.20 More significantly, the Tenth Circuit ultimately found the new DBE regulations to be narrowly tailored. These results are still standing after four cases upholding the federal DBE program. In Sherbrooke Sodding v. Minnesota Department of Transportation, 21 (combined with Gross Seed v. Nebraska Department of Roads 22), Western States Paving v. Washington Department of Transportation,23 and Northern Contracting v. Illinois Department of Transportation,24 federal appeals courts in the Eighth, Ninth, and Seventh Circuits have found the current DBE regulations to be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. 2.4 To Withstand Strict Scrutiny, an MBE/DBE Program Must Be Based on Evidence Showing a Compelling Governmental Interest Croson identified two necessary factors for establishing racial discrimination sufficiently to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest in establishing an M/WBE program. First, 17 Adarand v. Peña, 790 F.Supp. 240, 16 F.3d 1537 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. granted, 63 U.S.L.W. 3213 (U.S. Oct. 4, 1996) (No. 63-12), 115 S.Ct. 2097 (1995). 18 448 U.S. 448 (1980). 19 Upon remand the District Court ruled in favor of Adarand. The District Court found that while there was a compelling government interest for the program, the program was not narrowly tailored. In March of 1999, the Tenth Circuit vacated the District Court ruling as moot because Adarand had become certified as a DBE. In January of 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Appeals Court decision on mootness and remanded the case for a ruling on the merits of Adarand v. Slater, 120 S.Ct. 722 (2000). 20 Adarand v. Mineta, U.S. Supreme Court, per curiam, November 27, 2001. 21 th Sherbrooke Sodding v. MDOT, 345 F.3d 964 (8 Cir. 2003). 22 Gross Seed v. Nebraska Department of Roads, 345 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 2003); cert denied, 158 L.Ed. 2d 729 (2004). 23 Western States Paving v. Washington DOT, 407 F. 3d 983 (9th Cir. 2005). 24 th Northern Contracting v. Illinois DOT, Case No. 05-3981 (7 Cir. 2007). MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-5 Legal Background there needs to be identified discrimination in the relevant market. 25 Second, “the governmental actor enacting the set-aside program must have somehow perpetuated the discrimination to be remedied by the program,”26 either actively or at least passively with the “infusion of tax dollars into a discriminatory industry.”27 Although the Supreme Court in Croson and Adarand did not specifically define the methodology that should be used to establish the evidentiary basis required by strict scrutiny, the Court did outline governing principles. Lower courts have expanded the Supreme Court‟s Croson guidelines and have applied or distinguished these principles when asked to decide the constitutionality of state, county, and city programs that seek to enhance opportunities for minorities and women. The Ninth Circuit in Western States Paving cited the following evidence that Congress considered in finding a factual predicate supporting the federal DBE program:  Minority business ownership percentage does not reflect the percentage of the population.  MBEs have gross receipts that are on average approximately one-third those of firms owned by non-minorities.  MBEs own 9 percent of all businesses, but receive only 4.1 percent of federal contracting dollars.  WBEs constitute almost a third of all small businesses but receive less than 3 percent of federal contracting dollars.  Majority-owned construction firms receive more than 50 times as many loan dollars per dollar of equity capital as Black firms with the same borrowing characteristics.  After many state and local governments stopped their M/WBE programs there was a significant drop in M/WBE utilization in the construction industry.  The U.S. Department of Justice study The Compelling Interest for Affirmative Action in Federal Procurement: A Preliminary Survey found discrimination by trade unions, financial lenders, prime contractors, business networks, suppliers, bonding companies, and an “old boys network.”28 The Ninth Circuit also concurred with the ruling of the federal circuit in Rothe Development Corporation v. United States Department of Defense (as well as the Eighth Circuit in Sherbrooke Sodding) that Congress did not need to possess evidence of discrimination in every state to enact the federal DBE program.29 25 Croson, 488 U.S. at 492, 509-10. Coral Construction, 941 F.2d at 918. 27 Id. at 922. 28 Western States Paving, 407 F. 3d at 992. 29 Id. (citing Rothe Dev. Corp. v. United States Dep’t of Def., 262 F.3d 1306, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). 26 MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-6 Legal Background 2.5 The Governmental Entity or Agency Enacting an MBE Program Must Be Shown to Have Actively or Passively Perpetuated the Discrimination In Croson, the Supreme Court stated, “It is beyond dispute that any public entity, state or federal, has a compelling interest in assuring that public dollars, drawn from the tax contributions of all citizens, do not serve to finance the evil of private prejudice.”30 Croson provided that the government “can use its spending powers to remedy private discrimination, if it identifies that discrimination with the particularity required by the Fourteenth Amendment.”31 The government agency‟s active or passive participation in discriminatory practices in the marketplace may show the compelling interest. Defining passive participation, Croson stated, “Thus, if the city could show that it had essentially become a „passive participant‟ in a system of racial exclusion practiced by elements of the local construction industry, we think it clear that the city could take affirmative steps to dismantle such a system.”32 In Western States Paving the Ninth Circuit affirmed that “The federal government has a compelling interest in ensuring that its funding is not distributed in a manner that perpetuates the effects of either public or private discrimination within the transportation contracting industry.”33 The Ninth Circuit quoted the Tenth Circuit‟s assertion in Adarand v. Slater that “The Constitution does not obligate Congress to stand idly by and continue to pour money into an industry so shaped by the effects of discrimination that the profits to be derived from congressional appropriations accrue exclusively to the beneficiaries, however personally innocent, of the effects of racial prejudice.” 34 However, the Ninth Circuit did not have before it any evidence of private sector discrimination in Western States Paving. The Tenth Circuit‟s ruling in Adarand, however, noted two barriers that demonstrated a link between “public funds for construction contracts and the channeling of those funds due to private discrimination”: (1) discriminatory barriers to the formation of DBE subcontractors, and (2) barriers to fair competition between minority and nonminority subcontractors.35 The first barrier was supported by evidence of behavior by prime contractors, unions, lenders, and bonding companies. Evidence for the second barrier showed that “informal, racially exclusionary business networks dominate the subcontracting construction industry,” exemplified by family-run firms with long-standing relationships with majority subcontractors. In Adarand v. Slater the Tenth Circuit also favorably cited evidence of capital market discrimination as relevant in establishing the factual predicate for the federal DBE program.36 The same circuit court, in Concrete Works IV, also found that barriers to business formation were relevant insofar as this evidence demonstrated that M/WBEs were “precluded from the outset from competing for public construction contracts.”37 Along related lines, the court also 30 Coral Construction, 941 F.2d at 922 (citing Croson, 488 U.S. at 492) (emphasis added). See Croson; see generally I. Ayres and F. Vars, “When Does Private Discrimination Justify Public Affirmative Action?” 98 Columbia Law Review 1577 (1998). 32 Croson, 488 U.S. at 492. 33 Western States Paving, 407 F. 3d at 991 (emphasis added). 34 228 F.3d at 1176 (emphasis added). 35 Adarand v. Slater, 228 F.3d at 1169. 36 Id. at 1169-70. 37 Concrete Works IV, 321 F.2d at 977. The district court had rejected evidence of credit market discrimination as adequate to provide a factual predicate for an M/WBE program. Concrete Works v. Denver, 86 F.Supp. 2d 1042 (D Co. 2000) (Concrete Works I). 31 MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-7 Legal Background found a regression analysis of census data to be relevant evidence showing barriers to M/WBE formation.38 2.6 Anecdotal Evidence of Discrimination in Disparity Studies Most disparity studies present anecdotal evidence along with statistical data. The Supreme Court in Croson discussed the relevance of anecdotal evidence and explained, “Evidence of a pattern of individual discriminatory acts can, if supported by appropriate statistical proof, lend support to a local government‟s determination that broader remedial relief is justified.”39 Washington DOT introduced no anecdotal evidence of discrimination in Western States Paving. Washington DOT did have the DBE affidavits required by 49 CFR 26.67(a) attesting to the social and economic disadvantage of the DBE owners, but the Ninth Circuit ruled that those affidavits spoke to general societal discrimination and not discrimination within the transportation construction industry in the state of Washington. Although Croson did not expressly consider the form or level of specificity required for anecdotal evidence, the Ninth Circuit has addressed both issues in earlier cases. In Coral Construction, the Ninth Circuit addressed the use of anecdotal evidence alone to prove discrimination. Although King County‟s anecdotal evidence was extensive, the court noted the absence in the record of any statistical data in support of the program. Additionally, the court stated, “While anecdotal evidence may suffice to prove individual claims of discrimination, rarely, if ever, can such evidence show a systemic pattern of discrimination necessary for the adoption of an affirmative action plan.”40 The court concluded, by contrast, that “the combination of convincing anecdotal and statistical evidence is potent.”41 Regarding the appropriate form of anecdotal evidence, the Ninth Circuit in Coral Construction noted that the record provided by King County was “considerably more extensive than that compiled by the Richmond City Council in Croson.”42 The King County record contained affidavits of at least 57 minority or female contractors, each of whom complained in varying degrees of specificity about discrimination within the local construction industry, including the inability to obtain contracts for private sector work. The Coral Construction court stated that the M/WBE affidavits “reflected a broad spectrum of the contracting community” and the affidavits “certainly suggested that ongoing discrimination may be occurring in much of the King County business community.”43 In AGCC II, the Ninth Circuit discussed the specificity of anecdotal evidence required by Croson.44 Seeking a preliminary injunction, the contractors contended that the evidence presented by the City of San Francisco lacked the specificity required by both an earlier appeal in that case45 and by Croson. The court held that the city's findings were based on substantially more evidence than the anecdotes in the two prior cases, and “they [were] clearly based upon dozens of specific instances of discrimination that are laid out with 38 Concrete Works IV, 321 F.2d. at 977. Croson, 488 U.S. at 509. 40 Coral Construction, 941 F.2d at 919 (emphasis added). 41 Id. See also AGCC II, 950 F.2d at 1414. 42 Coral Construction, 941 F.2d at 917. 43 Id. at 917-18. 44 AGCC II, 950 F.2d at 1414 45 AGCC I, 813 F.2d 922. 39 MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-8 Legal Background particularity in the record, as well as significant statistical disparities in the award of contracts.”46 The anecdotal evidence included evidence of harassment of M/WBEs by entity personnel and of M/WBEs being told they were unqualified when they were later found to be qualified by third parties. The court also ruled that the city was under no burden to identify specific practices or policies that were discriminatory.47 Reiterating the city‟s perspective, the court stated that the city “must simply demonstrate the existence of past discrimination with specificity; there is no requirement that the legislative findings specifically detail each and every instance that the legislative body had relied upon in support of its decision that affirmative action is necessary.”48 2.7 To Withstand Strict Scrutiny, an MBE Program Must Be Narrowly Tailored to Remedy Identified Discrimination The discussion of compelling interest in the court cases has been extensive, but narrow tailoring may be the more critical issue. Many courts have held that even if a compelling interest for the M/WBE program can be found, the program has not been narrowly tailored. 49 Nevertheless, the federal courts in general and the Ninth Circuit in particular have found that the DBE program established pursuant to the current federal regulations (49 CFR, Part 26) issued under the Transportation Equity Act (TEA-21) (1998) has been narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest.50 The Ninth Circuit in particular has identified the following elements of narrow tailoring: “the efficacy of alternative remedies; the flexibility and duration of the relief, including the availability of waiver provisions; the relationship of the numerical goals to the relevant labor market; and the impact of the relief on the rights of third parties.”51 Each of these elements will be considered in turn. 2.7.1 Race-Neutral Alternatives Concerning race-neutral alternatives, the Supreme Court in Croson concluded that a governmental entity must demonstrate that it has evaluated the use of race-neutral means to increase minority business participation in contracting or purchasing activities.52 As the Ninth Circuit stated in Coral Construction, “Among the various narrow tailoring requirements, there is no doubt that consideration of race-neutral alternatives is among the most important.”53 There is little if any chance for a plan to succeed without addressing this requirement. As noted above, race neutral means are subject only to the rational relationship test. 46 AGCC II, 950 F.2d. at 1416. This evidence came from 10 public hearings and “numerous written submissions from the public.” 47 Id. at 1410. 48 Id. at 1416. 49 See, e.g., Contractors Ass’n of Eastern Pennsylvania, Inc., 91 F.3d at 605; Engineering Contractors Ass’n of South Florida, Inc., 122 F.3d at 926-929; Verdi v. DeKalb County School District, 135 Fed. Appx th 262 , 2005 WL 38942 (11 Cir. 2005). 50 Adarand v. Slater, 228 F.3d 1147; Sherbrooke Turf, 345 F.3d 963; Western States Paving v. Washington th DOT, 407 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2005); Northern Contracting v. Illinois DOT, Case No. 05-3981 (7 Cir. 2007). 51 Western States Paving, 407 F. 3d at 993 (citing U.S. v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149, 171 (1987)). 52 Croson, 488 U.S 507. 53 Coral Construction, 941 F.2d at 922. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-9 Legal Background Strict scrutiny does not mandate that every race-neutral measure be considered and found wanting, but does “require serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives.”54 In applying this principle in the Coral Construction case, the Ninth Circuit did not require King County to challenge state laws restricting its ability to alter bonding requirements. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit found it important that King County had adopted a number of race-neutral measures to help overcome discrimination.55 In Western States Paving the Ninth Circuit found that this prong of narrow tailoring was satisfied for two reasons. First, race-conscious remedies are only to be used in those jurisdictions where “discrimination or its effects are a problem.”56 The Ninth Circuit found this result in the two-step goal-setting process in the federal DBE regulations. Second, raceconscious remedies are only to be used when race-neutral means have proven inadequate.57 2.7.2 Flexibility and Duration of the Remedy The Ninth Circuit found flexibility in the new DBE rules because: (1) “TEA-21 regulations explicitly prohibit the use of quotas”; (2) when race-conscious contracting goals are employed, “prime contractors can meet that goal either by subcontracting the requisite amount of work to DBEs or by demonstrating good faith efforts to do so”; and (3) a state “cannot be penalized by the federal government for failing to attain its DBE utilization goal as long as it undertakes good faith compliance efforts.”58 Other factors that have impressed other circuits as to the flexibility of the federal DBE program include: (1) setting aspirational, not mandatory, goals; and (2) using overall aspirational goals as simply a framework for setting local contract goals, if any, based on local data. 59 With respect to program duration, the Supreme Court wrote in Adarand v. Peña that a program should be “appropriately limited such that it will not last longer than the discriminatory effects it is designed to eliminate.”60 The Ninth Circuit noted the limits in the revised DBE program, stating that “TEA-21 comports with this [durational] requirement because it is subject to periodic reauthorization by Congress.” 61 Other appellate courts have noted several possible mechanisms for limiting program duration in the revised DBE regulations: (1) the decertification of DBEs that achieve certain levels of success, or mandatory review of DBE certification at regular, relatively brief periods; and (2) a state “may terminate its DBE program if it meets its annual overall goal through race-neutral means for two consecutive years.” 62 Governments thus have some duty to 54 Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 339 (2003); see also Adarand III, 515 U.S. at 237-38, Coral Construction, 941 F.2d at 923 55 Coral Construction, 941 F.2d at 923. 56 Western States Paving, 407 F. 3d at 995. 57 Id. at 990 (citing 49 CFR 26.51(a). 58 Western States Paving, 407 F. 3d at 994 (citing 49 C.F.R. § 26.43(a), § 26.53(a) and § 26.47(a)). See also Sherbrooke Turf, Inc., 345 F.3d at 972 (“the DBE program has substantial flexibility”). 59 Sherbrooke Turf, Inc., 345 F.3d at 972. 60 Sherbrooke Turf, Inc., Adarand, 345 F.3d at 972, 515 U.S. at 238 (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Grutter, 123 S. Ct. at 2346. 61 Western States Paving, 407 F. 3d at 994. 62 Adarand v. Slater, 228 F.3d at 1179, 1180. Sherbrooke Turf, at 972 (citing 49 C.F.R. § 26.51(f)(3)). MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-10 Legal Background ensure that they update their evidence of discrimination regularly enough to review the need for their programs and to revise programs by narrowly tailoring them to fit the fresh evidence.63 2.7.3 Relationship of Goals to Availability Narrow tailoring under the Croson standard requires that remedial goals for contracting programs be in line with measured business availability. Merely setting percentages without a carefully selected basis in statistical studies of business availability, and not population availability as the City of Richmond did in Croson itself, has played a strong part in decisions finding other programs unconstitutional.64 By contrast, the Ninth Circuit in Coral Construction noted with approval that King County set its percentages individually on large contracts according to the number of available MBEs and had chosen a relatively low percentage (5%) for contracts of under $10,000—which percentage in turn was not absolute, but subject to further fact-specific considerations under a “bid preference” plan. Further, King County had carefully limited preferences for instances where it had evidence of discrimination against particular racial groups. 65 More significantly, the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have approved the goalsetting process for the USDOT DBE program, as revised in 1999. 66 The approved USDOT DBE regulations require that goals be based on one of several methods for measuring DBE availability. The Ninth Circuit noted that: The [TEA-21] regulations do not establish a mandatory nationwide standard for minority participation in transportation contracting…The TEA21 regulations instead provide for each State to establish a DBE utilization goal that is based upon the proportion of ready, willing, and able DBEs in the State’s transportation contracting industry. This provision ensures that each State sets a minority utilization goal that reflects the realities of its own labor market.67 Moreover, the approved DBE regulations use built-in mechanisms to ensure that DBE goals are not set excessively high relative to DBE availability. For example, the approved DBE goals are to be set aside if the overall goal has been met for two consecutive years by raceneutral means. The approved DBE contract goals also must be reduced if overall goals have been exceeded with race-conscious means for two consecutive years. The Seventh and Eighth Circuit courts found these provisions to be narrowly tailored, particularly when implemented according to local disparity studies that carefully calculate the applicable goals.68 63 Rothe, 262 F.3d at 1324 (commenting on the possible staleness of information after 7, 12, and 17 years). See, e.g., Builders Ass’n of Greater Chicago, 256 F.3d at 647. 65 Coral Construction, 941 F.2d at 924. 66 Adarand v. Slater, 228 F.3d at 1182; Sherbrooke Turf, 345 F.3d at 972. Western States, 407 F.3d at 995. In Northern Contractors the plaintiff forfeited its right to challenge the narrow tailoring the federal regulations themselves on appeal. Northern Contractors, at 720. 67 Western States Paving, 407 F. 3d at 994 (citing 49 C.F.R. § 26.41(b)-(c), § 26.45(b)). See also Sherbrooke Turf, Inc., 345 F.3d at 972 (“DOT has tied the goals for DBE participation to the relevant labor markets.”). 68 Sherbrooke Turf, Inc., 345 F.3d at 973, 974. 64 MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-11 Legal Background 2.7.4 Burden on Third Parties Narrow tailoring also requires specific efforts to minimize the burden of the program on third parties. The Ninth Circuit found that while rejecting bids of nonminority males in favor of higher bids by DBEs was a burden, such a burden sharing by innocent parties was permissible.69 Moreover, the new DBE regulations limited the burden on third parties by allowing the certification of nonminority males and by excluding minorities and women with a high personal net worth.70 The USDOT DBE regulations have also sought to reduce the program burden on non-DBEs by avoiding DBE concentration in certain specialty areas. 71 2.7.5 Selection of Groups for Inclusion in a Program Narrow tailoring also involves limiting the number and type of beneficiaries of the program. As noted above, there has to be evidence of discrimination to justify a group-based remedy, and over-inclusion of uninjured individuals or groups can endanger the entire program. 72 Federal DBE programs have succeeded in part because regulations covering DBE certification do not provide blanket protection to minorities.73 In Croson, the Supreme Court criticized the City of Richmond‟s inclusion of “Spanishspeaking, Oriental, Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut persons” in its affirmative action program. 74 These groups had not previously participated in city contracting, and “the random inclusion of racial groups that, as a practical matter, may never have suffered from discrimination in the construction industry in Richmond suggests that perhaps the city‟s purpose was not in fact to remedy past discrimination.”75 To evaluate availability properly, data must be gathered for each racial group in the marketplace. The Ninth Circuit also made this point in Western States Paving, stating that, “even when discrimination is present within a State, a remedial program is only narrowly tailored if its application is limited to those minority groups that have actually suffered discrimination.” 76 Consequently, there needs to be separate findings for each group included in a program. 2.8 “As Applied” Challenge in Western States Paving The Washington DOT DBE program was struck down not in Western States Paving because the federal DBE program had no factual program and not because the federal DBE program lacked narrow tailored program features. Instead, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Washington DOT DBE program was not narrowly tailored “as applied.” 77 While a state does not have to independently provide a factual predicate for its DBE program the Ninth Circuit found that, “it cannot be said that TEA-21 is a narrowly tailored remedial measure unless its 69 Western States Paving, 407 F. 3d at 995. Sherbrooke Turf, Inc., 345 F.3d at 974 (citing 49 C.F.R. § 26.67(d), (b). 71 49 CFR, Section 26, Part 33. 72 See, e.g., Builders Ass’n of Greater Chicago, 256 F.3d at 647. 73 Sherbrooke Turf, 345 F.3d 963, 972-73. 74 Id., 488 U.S. at 506. 75 Id. 76 Western States Paving, 407 F. 3d at 998. see also Monterey Mechanical Co. v. Wilson, 125 F.3d at 704. 77 The Ninth Circuit distinguished a previous case which did not involve an “as applied” challenge to the federal DBE program. Milwaukee County Pavers Ass'n v. Fiedler, 922 F.2d 419 (7th Cir. 1991). The Seventh Circuit disagreed with the Ninth Circuit‟s reading of Milwaukee County Pavers. See Northern Contracting, at fn 4. 70 MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-12 Legal Background application is limited to those States in which the effects of discrimination are actually present.”78 In effect, while Washington DOT was not required to produce a separate factual predicate for a DBE program, it was still required to produce a factual predicate (of sorts) to justify race-conscious elements in the local implementation of its DBE program. While Washington DOT conceded that it had no studies of discrimination in highway contracting, it argued that there was evidence of discrimination in the fact that DBEs received 9 percent of subcontracting dollars on state-funded projects where there were no DBE goals and 18 percent of federal funded projects where there were DBE goals. But the Ninth Circuit stated that, “even in States in which there has never been discrimination, the proportion of work that DBEs receive on contracts that lack affirmative action requirements will be lower than the share that they obtain on contracts that include such measures because minority preferences afford DBEs a competitive advantage.”79 In contrast, the Eighth Circuit in Sherbrooke Turf and the Tenth Circuit in Adarand v. Slater found that a decline in DBE utilization following a change in or termination of a DBE program was relevant evidence of discrimination in subcontracting.80 The Tenth Circuit stated that while this evidence “standing alone is not dispositive, it strongly supports the government‟s claim that there are significant barriers to minority competition in the public subcontracting.”81 The Ninth Circuit also dismissed the disparity between the proportion of DBE subcontractors and the proportion of DBE dollars on state-funded contracts, because “DBE firms may be smaller and less experienced than non-DBE firms (especially if they are new businesses started by recent immigrants) or they may be concentrated in certain geographic areas of the State, rendering them unavailable for a disproportionate amount of work.”82 The Ninth Circuit quoted the DC Circuit in O’Donnell to the effect that: Minority firms may not have bid on . . . construction contracts because they were generally small companies incapable of taking on large projects; or they may have been fully occupied on other projects; or the District’s contracts may not have been as lucrative as others available in the Washington metropolitan area; or they may not have had the expertise needed to perform the contracts; or they may have bid but were rejected because others came in with a lower price.83 The Ninth Circuit noted further that “if this small disparity has any probative value, it is insufficient, standing alone, to establish the existence of discrimination against DBEs.” The Ninth Circuit contrasted this minor disparity with the Ninth Circuit‟s decision in Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. Coalition for Economic Equity (AGCCII) where “discrimination was likely to exist where minority availability for prime contracts was 49.5 percent but minority dollar participation was only 11.1 percent.” 84 78 Western States Paving, 407 F. 3d at 998. Western States Paving, 407 F. 3d at 1000. 80 Sherbrooke Turf, 345 F.3d at 973. 81 Adarand v. Slater, 228 F.3d at 1174; see also Concrete Works IV, 321 F.3d at 985. 82 Western States Paving, at 1001. 83 Id. (quoting O’Donnell Constr. Co., 963 F.2d at 426). 84 Western States Paving, at 1001. (Quoting Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Coalition for Econ. Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). 79 MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-13 Legal Background The Ninth Circuit also observed that Washington DOT‟s “oversimplified statistical evidence is entitled to little weight, however, because it does not account for factors that may affect the relative capacity of DBEs to undertake contracting work.”85 (emphasis added) Simply relying on the numerical percentage of DBEs is inadequate to assess disparity. This emphasis of factoring in business capacity was reinforced in a recent case, Rothe Development Corp v. Department of Defense, in front of the Federal Circuit involving the Federal 1207 small, disadvantaged business (SDB) program. The Rothe decision criticized elements of factual predicate studies used to support the 1207 program that did not factor the size and capacity of firms in evaluating disparity.86 2.9 Small Business Procurement Preferences Small business procurement preferences have existed since the 1940s. The first small business program had its origins in the Smaller War Plants Corporation (SWPC), established during World War II.87 The SWPC was created to channel war contracts to small business. In 1947, Congress passed the Armed Forces Procurement Act, declaring that “it is the policy of Congress that a fair proportion of the purchases and contracts under this chapter be placed with small business concerns.” 88 Continuing this policy, the 1958 Small Business Act requires that government agencies award a “fair proportion” of procurement contracts to small business concerns. 89 The regulations are designed to implement this general policy.90 Section 8(b)(11) of the Small Business Act authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to set aside contracts for placement with small business concerns. The SBA has the power: to make studies and recommendations to the appropriate Federal agencies to insure that a fair proportion of the total purchases and contracts for property and services for the Government be placed with small-business enterprises, to insure that a fair proportion of Government contracts for research and development be placed with small-business concerns, to insure that a fair proportion of the total sales of Government property be made to small-business concerns, and to insure a fair and equitable share materials, supplies, and equipment to small-business concerns.91 Every acquisition of goods and services anticipated to be between $2,500 and $100,000 is set aside exclusively for small business unless the contracting officer has a reasonable expectation of fewer than two bids by small businesses. 92 85 Western States Paving, at 1000. Rothe Development Corp v. Department of Defense, 2008-1017 (Fed Cir 2008), at 34. 87 See, generally, Thomas J. Hasty III, “Minority Business Enterprise Development and the Small Business Administration‟s 8(a) Program: Past, Present, and (Is There a) Future?” Military Law Review 145 (Summer 1994): 1-112. 88 10 U.S.C. § 2301 (1976). 89 15 USC 631(a). 90 See 32 C.F.R. §§ 1-701.1 to 1-707.7. 91 15 U.S.C. § 637(b)(11). 92 Federal Acquisition Regulations 19.502-2. 86 MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-14 Legal Background There has been only one constitutional challenge to the long-standing federal small business enterprise (SBE) programs. In J.H. Rutter Rex Manufacturing v. United States,93 a federal vendor unsuccessfully challenged the Army‟s small business set-aside as in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Administrative Procedures Act and the Armed Forces Procurement Act.94 The court held that classifying businesses as small was not a “suspect classification” subject to strict scrutiny. Instead the court ruled: Since no fundamental rights are implicated, we need only determine whether the contested socioeconomic legislation rationally relates to a legitimate governmental purpose… Our previous discussion adequately demonstrates that the procurement statutes and the regulations promulgated there under are rationally related to the sound legislative purpose of promoting small businesses in order to contribute to the security and economic health of this Nation.95 A large number of state and local governments have maintained small business preference programs for many years.96 No district court cases were found overturning a state and local small business preference program. One reason for the low level of litigation in this area is that there is no significant organizational opposition to SBE programs. There are no reported cases of Associated General Construction (AGC) litigation against local SBE programs. And the legal foundations that have typically sued M/WBE programs have actually promoted SBE procurement preference programs as a race-neutral substitute for M/WBE programs. There has been one state court case in which an SBE program was struck down as unconstitutional. The Cincinnati SBE program called for maximum practical M/WBE participation and required bidders to use good faith efforts requirements to contract with M/WBEs up to government-specified M/WBE availability. Failure to satisfy good faith effort requirements triggered an investigation of efforts to provide opportunities for M/WBE subcontractors. In Cleveland Construction v. Cincinnati,97 the state court ruled that the Cincinnati SBE program had race and gender preferences and had deprived the plaintiff of constitutionally protected property interest without due process of law. The city acknowledged that it had not offered evidence to satisfy strict scrutiny, because it felt that it had been operating a race-neutral program. 2.10 Conclusions As summarized earlier, when governments develop and implement a DBE program that is sensitive to race and gender, they must understand the case law that has developed in the federal courts. These cases establish specific requirements that must be addressed so that such programs can withstand judicial review for constitutionality and prove to be just and fair. 93 th 706 F.2d 702 (5 Cir. 1983), cert denied, 464 U.S. 1008 (1983). Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(1)(E) (1976) and the “fair proportion” language of the Armed Forces Procurement Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. (1976), and the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 631 et seq. (1976). 95 J. H. Rutter Rex Manufacturing, at 706 F.2d at 730 (emphasis added). See also Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (1970). 96 For example, Florida started a small business preference program in 1985 (FL St Sec. 287); Minnesota in 1979 (Mn Stat 137.31); New Jersey, in 1993 (N.J.S.A 52:32-17). 97 Cleveland Construction v Cincinnati, Case No. A0402638 (Ct Comm Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio 2005). 94 MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-15 Legal Background Under the developing trends in the application of the law in the Ninth Circuit, local governments must engage in specific fact-finding processes to compile a thorough, accurate, and specific evidentiary foundation to determine whether there is in fact discrimination sufficient to justify race- and gender-conscious elements of a DBE plan. Race neutral methods must be considered first. Further, local governments must continue to update this information and revise their programs accordingly. MGT of America, Inc. Page 2-16 3.0 REVIEW OF CONTRACTING POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND PROGRAMS 3.0 REVIEW OF CONTRACTING POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND PROGRAMS This chapter focuses on policies and procedures used by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), to purchase goods and services. It provides a brief description of the procurement and contracting environment in which disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs) operate, as well as background for the data analysis and foundations for the report recommendations. Finally, we discuss the remedial efforts undertaken by ADOT and various agencies with regard to procurement in the categories of construction; Professional Services; Other Services; and Goods and Supplies. Our review is presented in 18 sections. Section 3.1 describes the methodology used to conduct the review of contracting policies, procedures, and programs. Sections 3.2 through 3.9 present a brief summary of the purchasing policies and procedures, and Sections 3.10 through 3.18 cover programs to assist disadvantage, small, minority,- and woman-owned, and disadvantaged businesses (DBEs/SM/WBEs). 3.1 Methodology This section discusses the steps taken to summarize ADOT’s contracting and purchasing policies, procedures, and programs; race- and gender-based programs; and race- and gender-neutral programs. Our review focused on elements of the purchasing process, including remedial programs that might impact DBE utilization. The analysis included the following steps:  Collection, review, and summarization of ADOT contracting and purchasing policies currently in use. Discussions with managers about the changes that contracting and purchasing policies underwent during the study period and their effects on the remedial programs.  Development of questionnaires administered to key ADOT contracting and purchasing staff and officials to determine how existing contracting and purchasing policies have been implemented. Interviews were conducted with ADOT management and staff regarding the application of policies, discretionary use of policies, exceptions to written policies and procedures, and impact of policies on key users.  Review of applicable ADOT ordinances, regulations, resolutions, and policies that guide the remedial programs. This included discussing with both ADOT personnel and program participants the operations, policies, and procedures of the remedial programs and any remedial policy changes over time. Finally, MGT collected and reviewed copies of previous studies of minority business development conducted in the geographic region and performed a comprehensive review of race- and gender-neutral programs. In all, nine interviews were conducted with current ADOT staff and local agencies during July through September of 2007. ADOT documents collected and reviewed for this portion of the study are itemized in Exhibit 3-1. MGT of America, Inc. Page 3-1 Review of Contracting Policies, Procedures, and Programs EXHIBIT 3-1 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED DURING POLICY AND PROCEDURE REVIEW Index 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Description Procurement Documents Arizona Department of Transportation, Fiscal Years, 2007-2011, Strategic Plan Arizona Department of Transportation, Advertisement for Bids Special Provisions Bidders Documents, May 2003 State of Arizona, Purchase Order Terms and Conditions, Revised 01/11/02. Arizona Department Of Transportation, Intermodal Transportation Division Rules For Pre-qualification Of Contractors (R17-3-201 Thru R17-3-204) ADOT, Application For Contractor Pre-qualification, Revised March 14, 2003 Arizona Department of Transportation, Engineering Consultants Section, Instructions and Information for Filing Application for Consultant Pre-qualification, 2006-2007 Arizona Department of Transportation, Engineering Consultants Section, Consultant Pre-qualification Package, 2006-2007 ADOT, Engineering Consultant Contract and Joint Project Agreement Award and Administration Procedures, September 1993 Arizona Department of Administration, Finance Division, Registration of Vendors, March 16, 1992 Arizona Department of Transportation, Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction, 2000 DBE/M/WBE Documents ADOT, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise FY 2003 AZ DOT, Desert News, June 2007 Engineering Consultants Section, Information Bulletin No. 01-05, DBE Participation, March 26, 1997 Engineering Consultants Section, Information Bulletin No. 01-05, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE), March 30, 2001 Engineering Consultants Section, Information Bulletin No. 01-04, Contract language revision – Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE), March 30, 2001 Memorandum, Lisa Wormington, DBE Program, January 3, 2006 Engineering Consultants Section, Information Bulletin No. 06-03, Change in DBE Commitment Requirements, May 15, 2006 Engineering Consultants Section, Information Bulletin No. 01-05, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE), May 15, 2006 State of Arizona, Governor’s Office of Equal Opportunity, 2007 Annual Report, March 30, 2007 Executive Order 2007- 21, Contracting With Small, Women- and Minority-Owned Businesses (Supersedes Executive Orders 2000-04, 2003-09, 2004-29), September 7, 2007 Executive Order 2004-29, December 17, 2004 Executive Order 2004-12, Governor’s Council on Small Business, May 18, 2003 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Supportive Services Funds, Fiscal Year 2005, Work Statement DBE/SS Work Statement Fiscal Year 2006 DBE/SS Work Statement Fiscal Year 2007 DBE/SS Accomplishment Report, FHWA Headquarters Office Of Civil Rights, FY 2006 ADOT, Mentor-Protégé Development Plan Agreement, July 14, 2003 Premier Engineering Corporation/Stantec Consulting, Mentor-Protégé Agreement, September 28,2006 MGT of America, Inc. Page 3-2 Review of Contracting Policies, Procedures, and Programs 3.2 Authorization and Delegation of Responsibility 3.2.2 Governing Rules ADOT non-construction procurement of materials and services (professional and nonprofessional) and construction /reconstruction of state facilities are subject to the Arizona Procurement Code (APC). Four areas of ADOT procurement are exempt from the APC:  Transportation facility construction, reconstruction, and design (including highways, bridges, rest areas, and airport facilities).  Contracts for sole source creative works and the Arizona Highway magazines.  Expert witness agreements.  Motor vehicle division third party authorizations. 3.2.1 ADOT Procurement Office The ADOT Procurement Office handles purchases made by ADOT.1 The ADOT Procurement office is responsible for Invitations for Bids, Requests for Proposals, and Requests for Qualifications (IFBs, RFPs, and RFQs). All purchases of $5,000 and more must be processed through procurement. ADOT is composed of ten engineering districts: Flagstaff, Globe, Holbrook, Kingman, Phoenix construction, Phoenix maintenance, Prescott, Safford, Tucson, and Yuma. ADOT had a program total of $2.97 billion in funding for FY 2006, of which $364.6 million came from the highway fund, $2.0 billion from non-appropriated funds and $523.4 million from federal funds.2 3.3 Purchasing Policies 3.3.1 Informal Solicitations ADOT has the discretion to purchase items costing less than $5,000 using petty cash (under $50), purchase order draft (under $500), or a decentralized purchase order (under 5,000). For purchases from 5,000 through $4,999 ADOT requires three quotes and must comply with the Small Business Rule and the Contracting with Small Women and Minority Owned Business Executive Order 2004-29.3. Purchases over $50,000 must be submitted to ADOT Procurement to determine the most appropriate purchasing method. (State law requires the rotation of small vendors and the solicitation of quote from at least one small, women- or minority-owned business enterprise for purchases less than $50,000.4) 1 The Arizona Department of Administration, State Procurement Office (now known as Enterprise Procurement System), is the central procurement authority for the state of Arizona. 2 Arizona Department of Transportation, Fiscal Years, 2007-2011, Strategic Plan, at 6. 3 Executive Order 2004-29 (December 17, 2004), directs Arizona Executive Branch agencies to promote the use of women- or minority-owned small business enterprises as subcontractors and suppliers. 4 ARS § 41-2535, Administrative Rule R2-7-D303. MGT of America, Inc. Page 3-3 Review of Contracting Policies, Procedures, and Programs 3.3.2 Formal Solicitations Formal solicitations are required for non-contract procurements in excess of $50,000. Formal solicitations are conducted by Procurement. The most common formal solicitant methods are IFBs and RFPs. 3.3.3 Public Notice The State SPIRIT system provides for distribution of Request for Proposals (RFPs), Invitation for Bids (IFBs), and Request for Quotations (RFQs). Notices of IFB and RFP are sent to registered vendors on the SPIRIT Web site prospective bidders list. (The State SPIRIT system also provides for submission of proposals, bids, and quotations, only on State Procurement Office (SPO) or some Strategic Contract Center (SCC) contracts (these are only done through the SPIRT system) distribution of contract award results, evaluation reports and competitor submissions.) SPIRIT issued its first solicitation in February 2004. By 2004 there were 6,500 vendors registered in Spirit. Information on solicitations is available on the ADOT procurement Web site. The ADOT Civil Rights Office also distributes the plan holders list to DBEs. 3.3.4 Cooperative Procurement Strategic Contract Center Contracts can be used by state agencies and local governments in the state of Arizona. In the state of Arizona there is a Cooperative Purchasing Partnership including over 400 higher education institutions, counties, cities, school districts and certain not-for-profit organizations. 3.3.5 Sole Source Procurement Under the Arizona Procurement Code a contract may be awarded as a sole source with a written determination that there is only one source for the required material, service or construction item. Cost or pricing data in connection with a sole source award may also be required.5 3.4 Construction Arizona law allows the ADOT to award construction projects through five project delivery methods:      5 ARS ARS 7 ARS 8 ARS 6 Competitive bidding Competitive sealed proposals Design-build contracts 6 Construction manager-at-risk7 Job-order contracting8 § 41-2536. R2-7-338. § 28-7363.A. § 28-7366.A.1. § 28-7366.A.2. MGT of America, Inc. Page 3-4 Review of Contracting Policies, Procedures, and Programs ADOT has generally employed a lowest responsible bidder process to award construction contracts to prime contractors.9 Change orders are permitted that do not change the scope of work and do not exceed 10 percent of the contract amount, or $50,000, whichever is greater.10 Design-build is a construction process where a single source has responsibility for design and construction of a project. In the first phase of a design-build process an ADOT selection team, half of whom are registered architects or engineers, issue and review a Request for Qualifications. From the RFQ respondents the ADOT selection committee compiles a short list. In the second phase ADOT issues RFPs to the short list of three to five design build teams. The selection committee then scores the proposals. ADOT then awards the contract to the “responsive and responsible design build team whose adjusted score is the lowest.”11 ADOT has used design-build for over six years for about ten projects in total. Construction management at-risk is similar to design-build in the sense that the construction manager, selected on the basis of qualifications, acts as the general contractor during construction, and assumes the risk of subcontracting the work and project completion. With job order contacting ADOT hires out a certain type of work on competitive basis, such as traffic signals and guard rail. There is a price list of activities, as well as a multiplier for different counties. For construction manager at risk and job order contracting ADOT also issues RFQs and compose a short list of three to five firms. After interviews a final list is created based on “demonstrated competence and qualifications only.”12 ADOT then negotiates with the highest ranked firm. Construction manager at risk solicitations are limited to a single project.13 For job order contracts firms submit separate technical and cost proposals, which are scored separately. ADOT then awards the contract to the “responsive and responsible offeror whose proposal receives the highest score.”14 Job order contracts can be issued for up to five years.15 ADOT has used job order contracting for some construction projects, particularly those involving emergencies. 3.5 Professional Services Outside consultants are used when the workload of ADOT requires it or specialized expertise is needed. The standard ADOT process for solicitation of consultants is to advertise Statement of Qualifications, including e-distribution on the consultant information page, review submissions for format compliance, conduct the selection panel meeting and approve the selections, receive the consultants cost proposal, conduct the final negotiations and execute the final contract. ADOT consultant selection factors may include, but are not limited to: project understanding and approach, project team, firm 9 ARS § 28-6923.H. ARS § 28-6923.K. 11 ARS § 28-7365.G.3. 12 ARS § 28-7366.C.2(d). 13 ARS § 28-7366.C.4. 14 ARS § 28-7366.F.9. 15 ARS § 28-7367.A. 10 MGT of America, Inc. Page 3-5 Review of Contracting Policies, Procedures, and Programs capabilities, location of work and DBE participation.16 Prime architecture and engineering (A&E) firms are required to adhere to the state DBE policy.17 There are four types of contracts for consultants: costs not exceed limitations plus a fixed fee, lump sum, cost per unit of work, and specific rates of compensation. For On Call contracts ADOT negotiates specific billing rates for contracts that are an initial year plus two years for design (or one year plus one year for Construction Administration). Design task orders are not to exceed $200,000 per task and $1 million per year. Construction Administration task orders are not to exceed $3 million per task in construction costs and $1 million per year per contract. A waiver is required to exceed these limits. 3.6 Bonding and Insurance 3.6.1 Bonding The state of Arizona requires performance bonds and payment bond on contracts to perform public work over $50,000 for highways, bridges, and other transportation projects.18 Bonds must be equal to the contract amount. ADOT bid security is 10 percent of the offeror’s bid amount.19 3.6.2 Insurance Contractors must file a certificate of insurance prior to contract execution. Contractors are required to maintain the following minimum insurance coverage until contract obligations with ADOT are fulfilled:  General liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit of $1,000,000 per occurrence.  Comprehensive Automobile liability insurance with a combined single limit of bodily injury and property of $1,000,000.  Workers compensation with a minimum limit of $100,000.20 Professional services contracts typically include, but are not limited to, commercial general liability ($1,000,000), commercial automobile liability, workers compensation, professional liability, and valuable papers coverage.21 Architects and Engineering are required to have professional liability insurance of $1,000,000 for each claim. 16 ADOT, Engineering Consultant Contract and Joint Project Agreement Award and Administration Procedures, September 1993, Section 1.10 17 ADOT, Engineering Consultant Contract and Joint Project Agreement Award and Administration Procedures, September 1993, Section 4.39. 18 Arizona Department of Transportation, Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction, 2000, Section 103.07, Requirement of Contract Bonds. 19 ARS § 28-6923.E. 20 Arizona Department of Transportation, Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction, 2000, Section 107.14, Insurance. 21 ADOT, Engineering Consultant Contract and Joint Project Agreement Award and Administration Procedures, September 1993, Section 1.26, 4.13. MGT of America, Inc. Page 3-6 Review of Contracting Policies, Procedures, and Programs DOT DBE staff reported that insurance requirements are an important issue with DBEs. For general state procurement vendors need $1 million in insurance coverage even for $200,000 contracts. On construction prime contractors typically want all subcontractors to insure the whole subcontract for whole life of the project. Subcontractor language is location in the Insurance module. 3.7 Vendor Registration and Pre-qualification Arizona Procurement is required to maintain a vendors list.22 Vendors can register for free with SPIRIT. Vendor registration includes identification of M/WBE status. The SPIRIT online directory allows for a search of firms by certification number by name, NAICS Code, NIGP code, certification type, location and capability description. (Prime engineering consultants pre-qualify bi-annually and subconsultants are encouraged to pre-qualify.23 Consultants are asked to submit their Affirmative Action and DBE policy as part of their pre-qualification package.24) Prime construction bidders must be pre-qualified for ADOT construction projects.25 In general subcontractors for ADOT construction projects do not have to be pre-qualified.26 Bidders must apply for pre-qualification fifteen days before bid opening. ADOT prequalification expires 15 months after the end of the firm’s fiscal year.27 The following information is considered for pre-qualification: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Key personnel and their work experience. Organizational structure. History of past or current projects and contracts. Company affiliations. Equipment owned or controlled. Any applicable licenses. Type of work requested. Individuals authorized to act on behalf of the contractor. Any pre-qualification or bidding disputes with a government agency, and Financial condition.28 Based on financial statement pre-qualification limits for contractors are set at levels of $300,000 for compiled financial statements, $1.5 million for reviewed financial 22 R2-7-312. Prospective Vendors Lists. ADOT, Engineering Consultant Contract and Joint Project Agreement Award and Administration Procedures, September 1993, Section 1.06. 24 Arizona Department of Transportation, Engineering Consultants Section, Instructions and Information for Filing Application for Consultant Pre-qualification, 2006-2007. 25 Arizona Department of Transportation, Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction, 2000, Section 102.02, Pre-qualification of Bidders 26 OAR 734-010-0240(6). 27 Arizona Department Of Transportation, Intermodal Transportation Division Rules For Pre-qualification Of Contractors, § R17-3-202.C. 28 Arizona Department Of Transportation, Intermodal Transportation Division Rules For Pre-qualification Of Contractors, § R17-3-202.A. 23 MGT of America, Inc. Page 3-7 Review of Contracting Policies, Procedures, and Programs statements and in excess of $1.5 million for examined financial statements.29 ADOT classifies construction firms as follows:  Inexperienced firms: Firms that have no experience in transportation construction. These firms have a maximum pre-qualification amount of $300,000.  New firms: New firms that have officers with experience in positions of responsibility for transportation construction. The maximum pre-qualification amount for new firms is five times the firm’s net worth.  Unknown firms: Firms that have experience as contractors but have not completed an ADOT transportation construction contract as a contractor at any time. The maximum pre-qualification amount for unknown firms is the greater of: (a) five times the firm’s net worth, or (b) the amount of the largest transportation construction project it successfully completed for another agency.  Known firms: Firms that have successfully completed at least one ADOT transportation construction contract within the past five years. The maximum pre-qualification amount for new firms is ten times the firm’s net worth, or unlimited, if the firm’s net worth exceeds $100 million.30 ADOT may reduce the pre-qualification amount or disqualify a construction firm if the firm: 3.8  Falsifies a document or misrepresents any material fact submitted to ADOT to the Department.  Fails to enter into a contract with ADOT.  Defaults on a previous contract with any public agency.  Has an unsatisfactory work performance record with the ADOT.  Fails to provide notification to the Board, within 30 calendar days of occurrence, of any change in ownership, officers or partners, bankruptcy, court supervised reorganization, or the entry of a judgment.31 Bidder Responsibility Bidders may be found non-responsible for:  Anti-competitive acts. 29 Arizona Department Of Transportation, Intermodal Transportation Division Rules For Pre-qualification Of Contractors, § R17-3-202.E. 30 Arizona Department Of Transportation, Intermodal Transportation Division Rules For Pre-qualification Of Contractors, § R17-3-202.D, F. 31 Arizona Department Of Transportation, Intermodal Transportation Division Rules For Pre-qualification Of Contractors, § R17-3-2023.A. MGT of America, Inc. Page 3-8 Review of Contracting Policies, Procedures, and Programs          3.9 Lack of competency and equipment. Incomplete work. Failure to pay. Failure to comply with ADOT qualification regulations. Contract default. Unsatisfactory performance. Making false and fictitious statements or documents. Lack of proper contractor’s license. Lack of sufficient ability or integrity to complete the contract.32 Vendor Relations 3.8.1 Vendor Debarment ADOT reserves the right to disqualify contractors, suppliers or subcontractors for cause from consideration for contract award. Causes for suspension from bidding include:  The person, officer, director, employee or agent has been convicted of: Unlawful restraint of trade. Knowingly and willfully concealing a material fact. Making false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements. Misrepresentation or false statements in a bond application. Misrepresentation or false statements in a pre-qualification application.33 ADOT staff reported that no firm has been disbarred under these rules to date. 3.10 Prompt Payment It is Arizona state policy to make progress payments on highway construction contracts fourteen days after certified estimates of work have been performed.34 Interest begins after the due date for payment of the contractor.35 ADOT is mandated under state law to require contractors on its highway construction contracts to pay their subcontractors and suppliers within seven days of receipt of progress payments, unless otherwise agreed in writing, to the extent of each subcontractors or supplier interest in the progress payment. A diversion of payment from a subcontractor received may be grounds for disciplinary action against the contractor.36 Contractors are to pay subcontractors and suppliers interest beginning on the eighth day after the receipt of periodic or final payment by the 32 Arizona Department of Transportation, Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction, 2000, Section 103.03, Responsibility. 33 Arizona Department of Transportation, Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction, 2000, Section 102.03, Suspension from Bidding. A person who has been convicted of violation of ARS 34-252 cannot contract with ADOT for three years. 34 ARS § 28-6924.A.1. 35 ARS § 28-6924.A.4. 36 ARS § 28-6924.A.2. MGT of America, Inc. Page 3-9 Review of Contracting Policies, Procedures, and Programs contractor. Prompt payment is also required under the federal regulations.37 ADOT staff reported no DBE complaints since the prompt policy was instituted. 3.11 Remedial Programs 3.11.1 Historical Background ADOT has maintained a DBE program since program inception in the 1970s. Following the Adarand decision and the revised U.S. DOT DBE regulations the updated ADOT DBE program was approved in February 2000.38 DBE utilization has also become one of the 28 key performance measures used by ADOT to gauge its organizational effectiveness and accountability in 2005.39 Following the appeals court decision of the Ninth Circuit in Western States Paving, ADOT ended its race-conscious elements of its DBE goals program in January 2006.40 ADOT data on DBE spending is presented in Exhibit 3-2 below. EXHIBIT 3-2 ADOT DBE SPENDING DOLLAR AND PERCENTAGE UTILIZATION FFY 2000 THROUGH FFY 2008 FFY 2000 FFY 2001 FFY 2002 FFY 2003 FFY 2004 FFY 2005 FFY 2006 FFY 2007 FFY 2008 DBE CONTRACTING VOLUMES $28,187,413 $45,902,083 $27,875,544 $35,040,647 $41,393,059 $36,184,839 $36,621,050 $10,538,046 $7,471,653 Source: ADOT DBE Accomplishment Reports Goal DBE PERCENTAGE UTILIZATION 9.01% 8.41% 9.5% 7.78% 9.06% 11.10% 5.44% 1.83 % 1.43% Submissions, DBE There is no DBE or M/WBE program for state-funded ADOT contracts. 3.12 DBE Goal Setting 3.12.1 DBE Aspirational Goal Setting ADOT annual aspirational goals have been approved by U.S. DOT as being in line with federal regulations. The 2003 ADOT DBE goal was 9 percent with 2.5 percent being 37 ARS § 28-6924.A.5. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Document, September 8, 1999. 39 See, e.g., Arizona Department Of Transportation, Annual Performance Progress Report (APPR) for Fiscal Year 2005-06 2007-09, Budget Form 107BF04c, September 29, 2006, at 58. 40 Memorandum, Lisa Wormington, DBE Program, January 3, 2006; Engineering Consultants Section, Information Bulletin No 06-03, Change in DBE Commitment Requirements, May 15, 2006. 38 MGT of America, Inc. Page 3-10 Review of Contracting Policies, Procedures, and Programs race-neutral. The DBE goal was based on ADOT contractor lists. DBE Consultants were 19.23 percent, DBE prequalified prime contractors were 5.46 percent, and DBE subcontractor/suppliers were 15.51 percent of the ADOT lists. These percentages were then weighted by their shares in ADOT spending resulting in an 8.89 percent DBE goal. Volume of spending with DBEs from FY 2000 through FY 2002 averaged 8.87 percent. This figure was then rounded to 9 percent based on DBE applications, as well as anticipated changes in federal aid spending. Using a similar approach the proposed FFY 2009 ADOT DBE was 7.38 percent, and was entirely race-neutral. 3.12.2 DBE Project Goal Setting The ADOT DBE program has been a subcontractor goals program, with no raceconscious set-asides, bid preferences, or mandatory joint ventures for DBE prime contractors during the study period.41 All DBE project goals are set out of the ADOT Office of Civil Rights (OCR). DBE goal setting begins with review of a detailed estimate provided by ADOT Contracts & Specifications. Of particular concern are location, nature of the work, and project size (as DBEs are reluctant to travel for small projects). Next ADOT identifies where there are available DBEs by bid items, such as guardrail, signage fencing and rebar. ADOT then factors in the best bid amount and then divide that amount in half, to grant primes more flexibility. Currently ADOT does not have set DBE goals for A&E contracts, but points have been given in the past for DBE utilization. In 2001, DBE participation in the Statement of Qualifications package was reduced from 10 percent to 6 percent and the bonus for DBE design participation was reduced from 5 percent to 3 percent.42 Bonus points were then applied only to projects with costs in excess of $1 million. The point system for A&E contracts was also ended following the Western States Paving decision. 3.12.3 Good Faith Efforts Requirements ADOT good faith efforts requirements in its program document follow the federal regulations. ADOT has a process for administrative reconsideration for firms that fail to meet good faith efforts requirements. More recently bids submitted to ADOT have satisfied the DBE goal, making good faith efforts submissions unnecessary. Prime contractors have been asked to call if the DBE project goal is unreasonable, and in some instances ADOT has lowered the DBE project goal in response to the concerns of primes. ADOT has also given workshops on good faith efforts submissions to facilitate program compliance. In a few isolated instances ADOT has rejected the low bidder for failure to satisfy good faith efforts requirements and made the award to the second low bidder. One such rejection was taken to Superior Court, but such action has not happened in over ten years. 41 Arizona state law does permit the limiting of competition for goods and services that cost $50,000 or less to firms owned and controlled by persons “disadvantaged by reason of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or physical or mental disability.” ORS § 279A.100(3),(1). 42 Engineering Consultants Section, Information Bulletin No. 01-05, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE), May 15, 2006. MGT of America, Inc. Page 3-11 Review of Contracting Policies, Procedures, and Programs 3.13 DBE Reporting ADOT has not conducted a disparity study previously. ADOT Civil Rights has used data from the ADOT FAST system to track DBE spending during the study period. ADOT tracked DBE prime and subcontractor construction spending, in dollar and percentage terms. ADOT has tracked both DBE and non-DBE subcontractor utilization. ADOT Civil Rights did not track most of ADOT’s DBE design work through the late 1990s because generally no federal dollars were involved. Consequently there was no tracking of DBE utilization in A&E, and the information was not submitted to ADOT Civil Rights. The only time federal dollars were involved was on design build projects. Engineering Consultants Section has its own tracking system for engineering and design projects, which is not linked to the FAST system, or to Contracts and Specifications. 3.14 DBE Certification The Arizona Department of Transportation and the cities of Phoenix (including the Phoenix airport) and Tucson are the sole entities certifying Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Transportation, city of Phoenix, and the city of Tucson are also members of the Arizona Unified Certification Program (UCP). The UCP was established on November 1, 2004. The state of Arizona also forged a partnership with the Arizona Department of Transportation, the city of Phoenix, and the city of Tucson to create an integrated business directory. SBEs, DBEs and M/WBEs certified with the ADOT, the city of Phoenix, or the city of Tucson are automatically be listed in the Arizona Steps Up Directory. The state of Arizona provides the Steps Up database as a reference source for state procurement staff, and the public, to locate S/D/M/WBEs that seek to do business with the state UCP members. The Steps Up directory is posted on the state Web site which is linked to ADOT Web site.43 As of January 2008, there were 910 certified DBEs in the Steps Up directory, of which 335 (36.8 percent) were owned by women and 63.9 percent were owned by minorities (Exhibit 3-3). The largest minority group was Hispanic owned firms, 26.7 percent. There were 386 certified MBEs, 245 certified WBEs and 487 certified SBEs in the database. There were 116 construction DBEs and 85 A&E DBEs. There were 602 DBEs sourced from the city of Phoenix and 304 from ADOT. About three to five firms graduate per year, more for the personal net worth limit than for average gross income. 43 www. www.azdot.gov/azdbe/DBE_search.aspx. MGT of America, Inc. Page 3-12 Review of Contracting Policies, Procedures, and Programs EXHIBIT 3-3 ADOT NUMBER OF CERTIFIED DBES BY ETHNIC/GENDER GROUP 2008 ETHNIC/GENDER GROUP African American Hispanic American Asian pacific American Native American Asian sub continent American Nonminority Female Other Total NUMBER PERCENT 195 21.4% 243 26.7% 72 7.9% 41 4.5% 21 335 3 910 2.3% 36.8% 0.3% Source: SPIRIT, January 2008. 3.15 The Civil Rights Office The ADOT DBE program is part of the ADOT Civil Rights Office (CRO). The Civil Rights Office is composed of following programs: Americans with Disabilities Act, Contract Compliance (including On-the-Job Training), DBE, Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor, Highway Construction Pre-Apprenticeship Program, Nondiscrimination program, and the Title VI program. There is not currently a DBE advisory committee. At one time ADOT brought together the AGC and DBEs informally to discuss the annual DBE goal. This process was discontinued in 2005. 3.16 Office of Equal Opportunity and Equity in State Contracting The Governor’s Office of Equal Opportunity has existed since 1975 to provide a compliance monitoring of Arizona State agencies. However, procurement is a small part of its annual report. The Governor’s Equity in State Contracting Executive Oversight Review Team provides some direction for state procurement equity. Arizona Steps Up is an effort of the Governor’s Equity in State Contracting Initiative. The Governor’s Equity in State Contracting Community Consultants Group, composed of representatives from Arizona’s business community, provides stakeholder input. 3.17 Nondiscrimination in Contracting Arizona State law does not contain an express commercial nondiscrimination provision that forbids discrimination in subcontracting. The state of Arizona does have legal MGT of America, Inc. Page 3-13 Review of Contracting Policies, Procedures, and Programs provisions covering nondiscrimination in employment by contractors and subcontractors on state projects.44 3.18 Small Business Enterprise There is no small contractors program at ADOT. The state has a small business set aside insofar as state law restricts, where practicable, procurements of less than $50,000 to small businesses.45 As noted above, state law also provides for bidder rotation of small vendors and for the regular solicitation of new suppliers.46 Arizona Executive branch agencies are required to train staff in the Executive Order and include the Executive Order content in agency purchasing manuals. All Executive Branch agencies are to track and report quotations, solicitations, and awards greater than $5,000. The Arizona Department of Administration is required to provide a report to the Governor’s Office beginning September 30, 2008. The state has also established a Governor’s Council on Small Business, chaired by the Small Business Advocate at the State Department of Commerce. The Council is mandated to focus on: a) Streamlining the licensing and permitting process so that small business owners have a more effective, efficient and customer-friendly method of obtaining requisite authorization to conduct business in Arizona; b) Increasing buyer awareness of the products and services available throughout Arizona and identifying new sales opportunities for Arizona companies domestically as well as internationally; c) Continuing to actively assist with the formation, vendor registration and expansion of small, minority- and women-owned businesses throughout Arizona; and d) Understanding and responding to the small business community’s concerns on issues impacting their ability to run a successful enterprise -such as employee benefits, quality of workforce, bonds, taxes, etc.47 3.19 Financial Assistance Programs 3.19.1 ADOT ADOT does not maintain a lending assistance program for small or DBE firms. The ADOT’s Supportive Services Program manager has proposed a short-term lending and bond program to the U.S. DOT for DBEs. This program has not been approved at this time but is being modified and being discussed with two bonding companies. There are 44 Executive Order 99-4 amending Executive Order 75-5. Arizona Revised Statutes § 41-2535. APC R2-7-335. 46 Executive Order 2007- 21. 47 Executive Order 2004-12, Governor’s Council on Small Business, May 18, 2003. 45 MGT of America, Inc. Page 3-14 Review of Contracting Policies, Procedures, and Programs number of other loan programs maintained by the state of Arizona and other nonprofit organizations, which are discussed below. Some of these programs are not listed because they focus on manufacturing, retail, or other business areas to the exclusion of businesses that operate in the transportation contracting area. 3.19.2 Other Loan Programs The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) maintains the 504 Loan Program, the 7A Loan Guarantee Program, the SBA’s Community Express program and the SBA’s Prequalification program. The 504 Program, available through Southwest Business Financing Corporation, is for the acquisition of fixed assets only, such as real estate and equipment. SBA 504 loans range from $250,000 to $1,500,000. The 7A Guaranty Program provides lines of credit or term loans for most business purposes. SBA 7A loans range from $50,000 to $2,000,000. The Community Express Program targets MBEs in low and moderate income neighborhoods with a high concentration of minority residents. The program provides an 85 percent guarantee for loans of less than $150,000 and a 75 percent guarantee for loans ranging from $150,000 to $250,000. The City of Phoenix Expansion Assistance and Development (EXPAND) Program supplies additional collateral for business expansion loans. EXPAND works with a conventional commercial loans and SBA loans. EXPAND provides collateral dollars up to 25 percent of approved loan amount (up to 50 percent in a Phoenix Enterprise Community). There is a maximum loan of $150,000 under the EXPAND program. 3.20 Bonding and Insurance Assistance At present, ADOT does not maintain a bonding assistance program. Bond waivers are discouraged, however, because of the need to build bonding capacity. ADOT is contemplating a bond training program. To date, ADOT has sent contractors to the city of Phoenix bonding class. 3.21 Management and Technical Assistance (M&TA) 3.21.1 ADOT DBE Supportive Services. ADOT’s DBE supportive services was contracted out to an outside consultant from 1986 through 2003. The most recent supportive services consultant was Applied Business. ADOT currently handles DBE supportive service within the Civil Rights Office. After assuming the M&TA responsibilities ADOT surveyed DBEs to seek out desired technical assistance. DBEs responded with requests for training assistance in the areas of marketing, business plan, preparation, bidding and estimating, bonding and cost management. ADOT DBE supportive services has focused on DBE identification, pre-qualification, and certification assistance. ADOT Civil Rights Office has five consultants that help contractors with bidding and estimating. The objective has been: increasing the total number of DBEs utilized; and assistance with estimating, bidding, immediate and longterm business management, recordkeeping, and financial accounting capabilities; and bonding and financial assistance. Training is both class room and one-to-one. There is MGT of America, Inc. Page 3-15 Review of Contracting Policies, Procedures, and Programs also a free plans checkout service, and mediation services. ADOT has provided DBEs with information on ADOT policies (including payment policies), historical cost, prime contractors, ADOT specifications, supply sources, financing, and bonding. Highway Construction Pre-Apprenticeship Program. ADOT has organized a Highway Construction Pre-Apprenticeship Program which provides six weeks of a full day preemployment training class in highway construction trades, leading to employment in the skilled trades in highway construction. The ADOT Pre-Apprenticeship Program has provided hands-on experiences in a wide variety of trades, OSHA and Flagging Certification to people, including several tribes, in Arizona. The Pre-Apprenticeship Program targets women and minorities, thereby expanding the pipeline for employment of women and minorities in highway construction. However, the program is open to all, regardless of race, gender or lack of previous construction experience. Mentor-Protégé. ADOT has had a mentor-protégé program in place for over ten years. There are two active mentor-protégé agreements, one started in 2007. The other agreement has been in place since 2004. Another mentor-protégé agreement expired in 2007. Under one mentor-protégé arrangement, an engineering firm sought assistance with project accounting, marketing databases, information technology infrastructure, cash flow procedures, topographical surveying, project management and staff utilization. 3.21.2 Other Business Development Assistance Programs A number of business organizations and local centers also support business development in ADOT and the Phoenix metro area. Phoenix. The city of Phoenix assist firms with general business and marketing, financing and loan packaging, business needs assessment and human resource planning. Procurement Technical Assistance Center The National Procurement Technical Assistance Program (PTAP) was started in 1985 to assist businesses selling to the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). PTAP assists with market research, identifying business codes, Web site registering, bid matching, specifications, marketing, support documentation, ecommerce and networking assistance and the federal acquisition regulations. There are several PTAP programs in Arizona. One PTAP is the National Center, which provide free technical assistance to American Indian owned small businesses and tribal companies. The National Center also provides procurement learning for American Indian Nation and Societies (PLAINS) and marketing and procurement Services (MPSP). The National Center is part of the national network of American Indian Procurement Technical Assistance Centers (AIPTAC), part of an agreement with the U.S. Department of Defense and the Defense Logistics Agency. National Center services include bid matching, technical and marketing assistance and resource information. National Center consulting expertise, delivered through Management Consulting Services, includes strategic planning, group facilitation business development planning, project management, marketing, and database management. Native American Business Enterprise Center (NABEC). The Native American Business Enterprise Center is operated through an agreement with the Minority Business Development Agency. NABEC provides business consulting services and technical MGT of America, Inc. Page 3-16 Review of Contracting Policies, Procedures, and Programs assistance to Native Americans. Assistance includes market research and assistance, financial analysis, loan packaging preparation, procurement assistance, procurement assistance, minority certification assistance, and business plan development. Small Business Development Center (SBDC). The Arizona SBDC was formed in 1988 and reached its present size of eleven centers in 2004. The network also has two satellite offices and a state wide office. The Arizona SBDC Network assists start-up, growth of small business expansion in the areas of business structure, management, issues. The SBDC Network program provides publications and free counseling primarily through its network of SBDCs. The SBDCs provide business planning, financial statement analysis, market feasibility, financing assistance, SBA loan assistance, micro loan funds access, employee training, operations assessment and marketing strategy. There are three Arizona providers of the FastTrac program for new and existing businesses. In 2003, the most recent year for which data is available, SBDC centers served 3,641 clients, including 206 business expansions and 283 business startups. The SBDC network’s annual budget was about $3.1 million in 2003, from the U.S. Small Business Administration. Participating community colleges and workshop and seminar fees provide modest additional money. The Arizona SBDC network is does not receive direct state aid. SCORE Business Resource Center. The SCORE Business Resource Center (BRC) in Phoenix provides a business resource library, internet access, computer resources and audio visual aids for entrepreneurs and small business owners. 3.21.3 Major Business Development Partnerships ADOT has engaged in a number of partnerships with business development organizations in the state of Arizona. A list of these partnerships and the dollar commitment involved in presented in Exhibit 3-4 below. MGT of America, Inc. Page 3-17 Review of Contracting Policies, Procedures, and Programs EXHIBIT 3-4 ADOT BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIPS RESOURCE AGENCY US Department of Commerce AZ State Procurement Office AZ Governor’s Office of Equal Opportunity Associated Minority Contractors of America PROGRAM CONTRIBUTION Participates in a multi-agency state contracting workshop, encourages DBE certification. Participates in a multi-agency state contracting workshop, encourages DBE certification. Participates in a multi-agency state contracting workshop, encourages DBE certification. Hosted a number of events, explained program, one of the sponsors for ADOT’s annual DBE Conference. National Center for American Indian Enterprise Dev. Marketed DBE Outreach Program to Native Americans, assisted with certification. AZ Associated General Contractors Explained program to general contractors, encouraged DBE utilization. (One of the sponsors for the Annual DBE Conference) Phoenix Black Chamber of Commerce AZ Small Business Development Center Network AZ Small Business Association American Indian Chamber of Commerce of Arizona Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce AZ Hispanic Chamber of Commerce American Council of Engineering Co. of AZ Grand Canyon Minority Supplier Development Council Explained program, hosted certification workshops. Key host of contracting workshops, marketed the DBE program, assisted in certification. Hosted two contracting workshops, assisted in marketing DBE program. Marketed DBE Outreach Program to Native Americans, assisted with certification. Marketed DBE Outreach Program to Hispanic population, assisted with certification. Marketed DBE Outreach Program to Hispanic population, assisted with certification. Encourages utilization of DBE firms on highway design. Marketed DBE Outreach Program to minority population in the southeast, Source: DBE/SS Workstatement Fiscal Year 2006. MGT of America, Inc. Page 3-18 Review of Contracting Policies, Procedures, and Programs 3.22 Outreach ADOT’s and the state of Arizona’s DBE outreach efforts have included:  Funding the ADOT DBE supportive services, discussed above.  (UCP) Maintaining the ADOT Web site, which has the following information: mission, program certification, supportive services, resource documents, resource links, vendor outreach, information on race-neutral programs, contracts, the procurement code, links to certification forms and information, plan holders list and links to extensive ADOT contracting information, AGC newsletter, DBE directory, prime [contractor] corner, DBE certification, and the DBE newsletter  Publishing the quarterly ADOT DBE newsletters, Desert News, providing information about the transportation construction industry, business advice, listing of recently certified DBEs, forthcoming highway projects, networking opportunities and training events.  Hosting Networking Matchmaking events for DBEs and prime contractors in Phoenix and Tucson.  Sponsoring or hosting certification and state contracting workshops around the state and New Mexico. In FY 2007 there were 16 such workshops (24 in FY 2006) with an estimated attendance of 320. These events are typically hosted by a service organization, such as an Arizona Small Business Development Center, a Chamber of Commerce, the Navajo Nation Division of Economic Development Center, or an Economic Development Office.  Participating in multi-agency state contracting workshops started in 2004, which have included the State Procurement Office, ADOT, the State Department of Commerce, and Governor’s Office for Equal Opportunity. Workshop topics have included certification, doing business with the state and Qualifying for Bonding & Liability Insurance  Holding pre-bid conferences.  Placing bid information on SPIRIT, the ADOT Web site and construction exchanges.  Holding an annual conference for DBE firms.  Publishing a DBE Directory.  Attending meetings of the Grand Canyon Minority Supplier Development Council, the Minority Business Development Center, the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the American Indian Chamber of Commerce.  Sending primes lists of DBE’s on both state aid and federal aid ADOT projects. MGT of America, Inc. Page 3-19 4.0 RELEVANT MARKET AREA, UTILIZATION, AND AVAILABILITY ANALYSES 4.0 RELEVANT MARKET AREA, UTILIZATION, AND AVAILABILITY ANALYSES This chapter presents the results of our analysis of the Arizona Department of Transportation’s (ADOT) procurement activity occurring between the fiscal years of July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2007. In this chapter we define ADOT’s relevant market areas and analyze the utilization of firms by ADOT in comparison to the availability of firms to do business with ADOT. The results of the analyses ultimately determine whether minority-, woman-, or nonminority-owned businesses were underutilized or overutilized in these procurements. This chapter consists of the following sections: 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.1 Methodology Construction Architecture and Engineering Professional Services Other Services Goods and Supplies Summary Methodology This section presents the methodology for the collection of data and analysis of market areas, utilization, and availability of minority-, woman-, and nonminority-owned firms for this study. The descriptions of business categories and minority- and woman-owned and disadvantaged business enterprise (M/W/DBE) classifications are also presented in this section. In addition, the procedures for determining the geographical market areas, utilization, and availability of firms are presented herein. 4.1.1 Business Categories ADOT’s relevant market area, utilization, and availability of M/W/DBEs were analyzed for five business categories: construction, architecture and engineering, professional services, other services, and goods and supplies. A description of each business category follows. Construction Construction refers to any construction-related services, including but not limited to:  General building contractors engaged primarily in the construction of commercial buildings.  Heavy construction such as airport runways, bridges, sewers, and roadways.  Light maintenance construction services such as carpentry work; electrical work; installation of carpeting; air-conditioning repair, maintenance, and installation; plumbing; and renovation. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-1 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses  Other related services such as water-lining and maintenance, asbestos abatement, drainage, dredging, grading, hauling, landscaping (for large construction projects such as boulevards and highways), paving, roofing, and toxic waste cleanup. Architecture and Engineering This business category encompasses all services performed by a:    State-licensed architect. Professional engineer. Firm owned by parties with such designations. Professional Services This business category includes:      Financial services. Legal services. Medical services. Educational services. Other professional services. Other Services Other services include:        Janitorial and maintenance services. Uniformed guard services. Computer services. Certain job shop services. Graphics, photographic services. Landscaping. Other nontechnical professional services. Goods and Supplies This business category includes:     Office goods. Medical supplies. Miscellaneous building materials. Computers. Certain purchases were excluded from analysis in this study. Examples include:  Administrative items such as utility payments, leases for real estate, insurance or banking transactions.  Salary and fringe benefits, payments for food, parking, or conference fees.  Government entities including nonprofit local organizations, state agencies, and federal agencies. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-2 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses 4.1.2 M/W/DBE Classifications In this study, businesses classified as M/W/DBEs are firms at least 51 percent owned and controlled by members of one of five groups: African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and nonminority women. These groups were defined according to the United States (U.S.) Census Bureau as follows:  African Americans: U.S. citizens or lawfully admitted permanent residents having an origin in any of the black racial groups of Africa.  Hispanic Americans: U.S. citizens or lawfully admitted permanent residents of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish or Portuguese cultures or origins regardless of race.  Asian Americans: U.S. citizens or lawfully admitted permanent residents who originate from the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands.  Native Americans: U.S. citizens or lawfully admitted permanent residents who originate from any of the original peoples of North America and who maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.  Women: U.S. citizens or lawfully admitted permanent residents who are nonHispanic white females. Minority women were included in their respective minority category. The M/W/DBE determinations reflected in this report were based on the source data discussed below in Section 4.1.3. If the business owner classification was unclear in the source data, MGT of America, Inc., (MGT), conducted additional research to determine the proper business owner classification. This additional research included requesting assistance from cognizant ADOT representatives to identify the proper business owner classification. Firms that were identified in the source data as non-M/W/DBEs and firms for which there was no indication of M/W/DBE classification in the source data were considered to be nonminority-owned firms in the analysis conducted for this study. 4.1.3 Collection and Management of Data Hard-copy and electronic procurement data within the study period for all business categories were manually collected onsite at ADOT agencies by MGT and Classique, LLC., a local Phoenix, AZ, management consulting firm. Contract and Subcontract Data Collection Using the electronic data provided by ADOT and the manual data collected onsite, MGT developed a master list of ADOT’s procurement activity during the study period. The master list was comprised of databases obtained from ADOT’s Civil Rights Office, the Construction Department, the Purchasing Department, and the Architecture and Engineering Department. This data contained both prime contracts and subcontracts. The following electronic files were provided by ADOT agencies:  Civil Rights UCP Vendor List: an excel file containing a list of vendors from the State of Arizona’s UCP list. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-3 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses  Engineering Contract Summary with detail as of 07-28-07: an excel file containing a detailed summary of engineering contracts throughout the study period.  Engineering Contract List - All FY03 to FY07: an excel file including active, pending, closeout, and closed contracts.  Engineering FY02 Executive Summary – Excel Rough Copy: an excel spreadsheet containing a summary of the 2002 fiscal year engineering report.  Engineering FY03 to FY07 Executive Summary: an excel spreadsheet containing a summary of the 2003 through 2007 fiscal years engineering reports.  Engineering FY03 to FY07 Executive Summary – Excel Rough Copy: an excel spreadsheet containing a summary of the 2003 through 2007 fiscal years engineering reports.  Engineering mailing list as of 08-02-07: an excel file containing a mailing list of Engineers utilized by ADOT.  Arizona Department of Transportation Vendor List: a list of all the vendors providing services for ADOT.  Construction Payments: an excel file containing payment history on ADOT construction contracts  Construction Subcontractors: an excel file containing subcontract data for ADOT construction contracts during the study period.  Contractor’s List: an excel file containing a list of contractors that provides services to ADOT.  FY02 - Construction Contracts: an excel spreadsheet that contains ADOT construction contracts let during the 2002 fiscal year.  FY03 - Construction Contracts: an excel spreadsheet that contains ADOT construction contracts let during the 2003 fiscal year.  FY04 - Construction Contracts: an excel spreadsheet that contains ADOT construction contracts let during the 2004 fiscal year.  FY05 - Construction Contracts: an excel spreadsheet that contains ADOT construction contracts let during the 2005 fiscal year.  FY06 - Construction Contracts: an excel spreadsheet that contains ADOT construction contracts let during the 2006 fiscal year.  FY07 - Construction Contracts: an excel spreadsheet that contains ADOT construction contracts let during the 2007 fiscal year.  Disparity Study Contractor Addresses: an excel spreadsheet containing the addresses of contractors utilized by ADOT. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-4 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses  Office of Civil Right’s DBE mailing list: an excel file containing a list of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises.  PQ Primes 061507: an excel file containing pre-qualified firms.  Engineering Consultant mailing list.  All Construction bids FY02 – FY07: an excel spreadsheet containing all construction bids for the study period. Data from the electronic files listed above were combined to create the master file of ADOT’s procurement activity for the study period. Each electronic list provided the following data that we used for analysis:  Name of firm awarded the contract.  Award amount of the contract.  Award date of the contract.  A description of the contract from which the business category of the procurement could be derived. Once collected and entered or transferred into the MGT database, the data were processed as follows:  Exclusion of records not relevant to the study. Examples of procurement activity excluded from analysis include duplicate procurement records; contracts out of the time frame of the study; contracts awarded to nonprofits and government entities; and utility payments such as water, gas, and electricity.  Identification of the county in which the vendor operated. To accomplish this, the ZIP code of the vendor was matched against an MGT ZIP code database of all United States counties.  Identification of the prime contractor’s business category. The total number of procurement records analyzed for the study period is shown below in Exhibit 4-1. These numbers can be found in the relevant market area exhibits, for each perspective business category. The numbers equal the number of contracts total. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-5 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses EXHIBIT 4-1 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NUMBER OF ANALYZED RECORDS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 BUSINESS CATEGORY Construction Architecture and Engineering Professional Services Other Services Goods and Supplies # OF RECORDS* 421 459 243 120 328 Source: Procurement activity compiled from ADOT’s data. Availability (Vendor) Data Collection Determining the availability of firms is a critical element in developing disparity analyses. Therefore, MGT analyzes the availability of firms at the prime and subcontractor level. For the purposes of this study, MGT defines prime contractors as firms that (1) have performed prime contract work for ADOT; (2) have bid on prime contract work for ADOT; (3) have registered as bidders with ADOT purchasing department; or (4) are included in ADOT’s available vendors database. These firms are considered to be available because they have either performed or indicated their willingness to perform prime contract work for ADOT by registering with ADOT to be considered for contracting opportunities. The following source agencies provided lists that were used to develop our master list of firms:  The Arizona Department of Transportation’s Civil Rights Office.  The Arizona Department of Transportation’s Procurement Group.  The Arizona Department of Transportation’s Transportation Services Group.  The Arizona Department of Transportation’s Construction Group Field Reports Section.  The Arizona Department of Transportation’s Engineering Consultants Section. This process generated a listing of 5,472 entries. Employee names were identified and excluded from further analysis. We also excluded business listings for firms where there was incomplete data, such as address information. As a result, our availability analyses were based on a pool of 3,659 firms. 4.1.4 Market Area Methodology In order to establish the appropriate geographic boundaries for the statistical analysis, the market areas were determined for each of the business categories by using the counties in the state of Arizona. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-6 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses Overall Market Area A United States county is the geographical unit of measure selected for determining market area. The use of counties as geographical units is based on the following considerations:  The courts have accepted counties as a standard geographical unit of analysis in conducting equal employment opportunity and disparity analysis.  County boundaries are externally determined and thus free from any researcher bias that might result from any arbitrary determinations of geographical units of analysis.  Census and other federal and state data are routinely collected and reported by county. The counties that constituted ADOT’s overall market area were determined by evaluating the total dollars expended by ADOT in each business category. The results were then summarized by county according to the location of each firm that provided goods or services to ADOT. Relevant Market Area Next, relevant market area was determined for each business category using the counties in the state of Arizona. The first step was to sum the dollars awarded in each of the counties included in the state of Arizona. The counties were listed according to the number of firms awarded contract dollars, and then by the dollar amounts awarded. This process was repeated for each business category. The data used to determine the overall and relevant market areas for ADOT business categories were as follows:        Number of individual firms. Percentage of total firms. Number of contracts let. Percentage of total contracts let. Contracts awarded. Payments made. Percentage of total dollars. 4.1.5 Utilization Methodology The prime level utilization analyses of construction, architecture and engineering, professional services, other services, and goods and supplies firms were based on information derived from ADOT procurement database for activity occurring between July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2007. 4.1.6 Availability Methodology To evaluate disparate impact, if any, we must identify available M/W/DBEs in the relevant market area by each business category. This determination, referred to as availability, has been an issue in recent court cases. If the availability of minority- and MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-7 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses woman-owned firms is overstated or understated, a distortion of the disparity determination will result. This distortion occurs because the quantitative measure of disparity is a direct ratio between utilization and availability. To determine availability, several methodologies have been used, including vendor data and bidder data. The use of vendor data is preferable because it considers firms that have expressed a desire and ability to provide goods and/or services to procuring entities. For this analysis, MGT used vendor data as the basis of the availability component. MGT utilized several sources, as indicated previously in this chapter, to determine prime and subcontractor availability in order to develop the appropriate availability data within the relevant market area. All of the data were then compiled into the MGT Master Vendor Database for analysis. As indicated earlier, there are over 3,600 individual firms in MGT’s Master Vendor Database. Exhibit 4-2 shows a summary of the total number of available firms in the database by business category. These numbers are reflected in the availability exhibits for each of the perspective business categories. EXHIBIT 4-2 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AVAILABILITY OF FIRMS BY BUSINESS CATEGORY JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 BUSINESS CATEGORY Construction Construction Subcontractors Architecture and Engineering Architecture and Engineering Subcontractors Professional Services Other Services Goods and Supplies TOTAL FIRMS* 198 781 412 587 315 211 269 Source: MGT’s Master Vendor Database. * Note: The availability analysis presented later in this chapter is based only on firms in the relevant market area, which is a subset of the ―Total Firms.‖ Vendors may be counted in more than one business category if their qualifications suggest multiple disciplines. 4.2 Federal Construction Contracts This section presents the analysis of ADOT market area for the construction business category, as well as the utilization and availability of firms. 4.2.1 Relevant Market Area Analysis ADOT spent close to $2.7 billion on construction projects during the study period and used 87 firms on 421 contracts. Approximately $2.4 billion (91.1%) of the construction prime contract dollars was within the relevant market area. The average construction contract overall was $6.4 million, and the average construction contract in the relevant MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-8 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses market area was $6.6 million. Exhibit 4-3 shows the location of all firms used in the analysis of construction contracts, by county and dollar amount. EXHIBIT 4-3 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION RELEVANT MARKET AREA ANALYSIS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 # of County, State MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YUMA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ COCHISE, AZ GRAHAM, AZ MOHAVE, AZ GILA, AZ SAN DIEGO, CA MONTEZUMA, CO SAUK, WI COOK, IL LINN, IN DALLAS, TX BLAINE, ID MESA, CO SAINT JOSEPH,IN BERNALILLO, NM STEARNS, MN CUMBERLAND, PA SACRAMENTO, CA SALT LAKE, UT NOVA SCOTIA Total % of # of % of Contracts Contracts Firms Firms 240 57.01% 46 52.87% 55 13.06% 10 11.49% 34 8.08% 5 5.75% 11 2.61% 2 2.30% 21 4.99% 2 2.30% 2 0.48% 1 1.15% 4 0.95% 1 1.15% 1 0.24% 1 1.15% 1 0.24% 1 1.15% 7 1.66% 3 3.45% 5 1.19% 2 2.30% 6 1.43% 1 1.15% 4 0.95% 1 1.15% 4 0.95% 1 1.15% 1 0.24% 1 1.15% 2 0.48% 1 1.15% 2 0.48% 1 1.15% 5 1.19% 1 1.15% 2 0.48% 1 1.15% 1 0.24% 1 1.15% 10 2.38% 1 1.15% 1 0.24% 1 1.15% 1 0.24% 1 1.15% 1 0.24% 1 1.15% 421 100.00% 87 100.00% % of 2 Dollars Dollars Cum% $1,804,731,214.57 67.35% 67.35% $152,235,926.00 5.68% 73.03% $116,910,956.14 4.36% 77.39% $296,597,073.22 11.07% 88.46% $49,463,887.40 1.85% 90.31% $10,046,822.15 0.37% 90.68% $9,203,810.63 0.34% 91.03% $1,522,635.24 0.06% 91.08% $191,729.50 0.01% 91.09% $27,628,477.00 1.03% 92.12% $6,345,012.35 0.24% 92.36% $155,168,364.43 5.79% 98.15% $18,874,298.16 0.70% 98.85% $7,028,450.00 0.26% 99.12% $6,940,000.00 0.26% 99.38% $4,380,500.55 0.16% 99.54% $2,952,751.50 0.11% 99.65% $2,802,996.18 0.10% 99.75% $1,906,701.00 0.07% 99.82% $1,863,540.23 0.07% 99.89% $1,070,999.47 0.04% 99.93% $945,000.00 0.04% 99.97% $497,490.75 0.02% 99.99% $324,660.00 0.01% 100.00% $2,679,633,296.47 100.00% 1 Source: Arizona Department of Transportation’s Construction Group Field Reports Section 1 Cumulative total of percentage of dollars in market area. 2 Counties above the line are included in the relevant market area. As shown in Exhibit 4-3, the relevant market area for the construction business category consisted of the state of Arizona. There were 369 contracts awarded to 69 firms in the relevant market area. Appendix A provides further detail about construction contracts. 4.2.2 Utilization Analysis For firms located in the relevant market area, the following analysis was conducted:  Utilization analysis of all M/W/DBE and non-M/W/DBE prime contractors by year for the study period.  Utilization analysis of the number of contracts awarded and the individual firms awarded those contracts, according to race/ethnicity/gender classifications. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-9 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses  Utilization analysis of M/W/DBE subcontractors for each year of the study, according to race/ethnicity/gender classifications. The utilization analysis of prime construction contractors in the relevant market area is shown in Exhibit 4-4. M/W/DBEs were awarded 1.3 percent of the total dollars expended by ADOT during the review period. Firms owned by nonminority women received $31.3 million, which constituted the 1.3 percent. EXHIBIT 4-4 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION UTILIZATION ANALYSIS OF PRIME CONTRACTORS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA DOLLARS AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DOLLARS AWARDED BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal African Hispanic Asian Native Nonminority M/WBE Nonminority Total Year Americans Americans Americans Americans Women Subtotal Firms Dollars Awarded %1 $ $ %1 %1 $ %1 $ $ %1 $ %1 $ %1 $ 2002 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $7,785,051 2.74% $7,785,051 2.74% $276,727,124 97.26% $284,512,175 2003 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $1,317,614 0.39% $1,317,614 0.39% $333,300,489 99.61% $334,618,103 2004 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $3,459,617 0.83% $3,459,617 0.83% $415,344,130 99.17% $418,803,747 2005 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $4,926,384 1.18% $4,926,384 1.18% $412,086,026 98.82% $417,012,410 2006 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $7,117,460 1.29% $7,117,460 1.29% $545,358,531 98.71% $552,475,991 2007 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $6,720,394 1.55% $6,720,394 1.55% $426,761,236 98.45% $433,481,629 Total $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $31,326,519 1.28% $31,326,519 1.28% $2,409,577,535 98.72% $2,440,904,055 Source: MGT database of ADOT’S procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by Construction Group Field Reports Section. 1 Percent of total dollars awarded annually to prime contractors. Nonminority women were most successful in winning contracts in 2002 based on the relative percentage of total prime contract dollar awards (2.7% of the total). By dollars awarded, nonminority women were most successful as prime contractors in the year 2002, compare to the other years of the study. Exhibits 4-5 and 4-6 show the number of contracts awarded and prime construction firms utilized during the study period. Exhibit 4-5 shows that 369 contracts were awarded in the relevant market area, with 92.7 percent of those contracts going to nonminority-owned firms, whereas M/W/DBEs received 7.3 percent of the contract awards—27 of the 369 contracts. Exhibit 4-6 shows that seven M/W/DBE firms (10.1%) were awarded construction projects at the prime contractor level. In comparison, 62 nonM/W/DBEs were hired during the same period. The data in Exhibits 4-5 and 4-6 also show that ADOT issued larger, bundled contracts to fewer firms during the study period. This observation is based on the fact that the average amount per prime construction contract in 2003 was $4.4 million ($334.6 million/77 contracts). By 2005, that average increased to $6.5 million ($417 million/64 contracts). MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-10 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses EXHIBIT 4-5 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION PRIME CONTRACTS AWARDED IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal Year African Americans %1 # Hispanic Americans Asian Americans %1 # Native Americans %1 # %1 # Nonminority Women %1 # M/WBE Subtotal # Total Contracts Awarded Nonminority Firms %1 # %1 # 2002 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 3.28% 2 3.28% 59 96.72% 61 2003 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 3.90% 3 3.90% 74 96.10% 77 2004 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 4.29% 3 4.29% 67 95.71% 70 2005 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 4.69% 3 4.69% 61 95.31% 64 2006 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 16.33% 8 16.33% 41 83.67% 49 2007 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 16.67% 8 16.67% 40 83.33% 48 Total Contracts 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7.32% 342 92.68% 369 27 7.32% 27 Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by Construction Group Field Reports Section. 1 Percentage of total contracts. EXHIBIT 4-6 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION NUMBER OF UTILIZED INDIVIDUAL PRIME CONTRACTORS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal Year African Americans %1 # Hispanic Americans %1 # Asian Americans %1 # Native Americans %1 # Nonminority Women %1 # M/WBE Subtotal %1 # Nonminority Firms %1 # Total Firms # 2002 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 4.00% 1 4.00% 24 96.00% 25 2003 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 5.88% 2 5.88% 32 94.12% 34 2004 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 7.69% 2 7.69% 24 92.31% 26 2005 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 6.67% 2 6.67% 28 93.33% 30 2006 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 17.39% 4 17.39% 19 82.61% 23 2007 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 14.81% 4 14.81% 23 85.19% 27 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 10.14% 7 10.14% 62 89.86% 69 Individual Firms Over Six Years2 0 Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by Construction Group Field Reports Section. 1 Percentage of total firms. 2 Individual Firms‖ counts a firm only once for each year it receives work. Because a firm could be used in multiple years, the ―Individual Firms‖ for the entire study period may not equal the sum of all years. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-11 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses Threshold Analysis MGT analyzed the utilization of M/W/DBE and Non-M/W/DBE construction firms by examining contracts in the specific dollar ranges shown below: Contracts $100,000 and under. Contracts between $100,001 and $1 million. Contracts over $1 million.    As Exhibit 4-7 illustrates, M/W/DBEs received 14 percent of the contracts awarded in amounts of $100,000 or less. However, the analysis showed that as the contract dollar amount increased, the level of M/W/DBE participation decreased, such that in the higher dollar range—contracts of $1 million or more—M/W/DBE participation dropped to less than 1 percent of the awarded contracts. Among M/W/DBEs, and based on percentage utilization, firms owned by nonminority women were more successful in winning construction contracts in all dollar categories. EXHIBIT 4-7 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARDS BY THRESHOLD JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Threshold African Americans Hispanic Americans %1 # Less than or Equal to $100,000 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 Between $100,001 and $1 million 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Greater than $1 million 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 # %1 Native Americans # Total %1 Asian Americans M/WBE Subtotal Nonminority Firms %1 Total Contracts Awarded # # %1 # %1 # 0.00% 1 16.67% 1 16.67% 5 83.33% 6 0 0.00% 18 15.13% 18 15.13% 101 84.87% 119 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 3.28% 8 3.28% 236 96.72% 244 0.00% 0 0.00% 27 7.32% 27 7.32% 342 92.68% 369 # %1 Nonminority Women Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by Construction Group Field Reports Section. 1 Percentage of total contracts awarded annually to prime contractors. Exhibit 4-8 shows a graphical representation of the dollar ranges for the utilization of M/W/DBEs and illustrates how M/W/DBE firms fared as contract dollars rose. Exhibit 4-9 presents the threshold analysis based on award totals in the respective categories, showing a percentage concentration of M/W/DBE participation on contracts of $100,000 or less. However, as the dollar value of the awarded contracts increased, M/W/DBE participation decreased, to the extent that in the highest dollar range M/W/DBEs received 3.3 percent of the total dollars awarded. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-12 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses EXHIBIT 4-8 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UTILIZATION OF PRIME CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS WITHIN CONTRACT DOLLAR RANGES JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 EXHIBIT 4-9 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD AMOUNTS BY THRESHOLD JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Threshold African Americans %1 $ Hispanic Americans $ %1 Asian Americans %1 $ Native Americans $ %1 Nonminority Women $ %1 M/WBE Subtotal $ Nonminority Firms %1 $ %1 Total Contracts Awarded $ Less than or Equal to $100,000 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $55,157 14.02% $55,157 14.02% $338,300 85.98% $393,456 Between $100,001 and $1 million $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $8,107,686 12.94% $8,107,686 12.94% $54,567,235 87.06% $62,674,921 Greater than $1 million $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $23,163,677 0.97% $23,163,677 0.97% $2,354,672,001 99.03% $2,377,835,678 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $31,326,519 1.28% $31,326,519 1.28% $2,409,577,535 98.72% $2,440,904,055 Total Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by Construction Group Field Reports Section. 1 Percentage of total contracts awarded annually to prime contractors. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-13 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses Construction Subcontractor Analysis MGT collected electronic subcontractor data from ADOT’s Construction Department. This data was retrieved and analyzed to show M/W/DBE subcontractor participation on ADOT’s construction projects during the study period. Exhibits 4-10 through 4-12 show the construction subcontractor analysis. Exhibit 4-10 shows that ADOT spent over $801 million on construction subcontracting during the study period. M/W/DBEs received 23.9 percent of the overall dollars let on construction subcontracts. Of the M/W/DBEs, nonminority women were the more successful, receiving $100.4 million (12.5%) of the total construction subcontract dollars. Nonminority women were followed by Native Americans who received $53.6 million (6.7%), and Hispanic Americans, receiving $37.4 million (4.7%). Overall, nonminorities were the most successful, receiving $610.1 million (76.1%). MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-14 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses EXHIBIT 4-10 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION UTILIZATION ANALYSIS OF SUBCONTRACTORS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA DOLLARS AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DOLLARS AWARDED BY RACE/ETNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal African Hispanic Asian Native Nonminority M/WBE Nonminority Year Americans Americans Americans Americans Women Subtotal Total % $ 1 $ % 1 $ % 1 $ 2002 $0.00 0.00% $2,883,393.68 3.81% $0.00 0.00% $11,223,070.33 2003 $104,500.00 0.09% $3,848,204.93 3.44% $0.00 0.00% 2004 $95,000.00 0.06% $8,866,008.10 6.04% $0.00 2005 $37,660.00 0.03% $10,682,021.87 7.99% 2006 $0.00 0.00% $6,999,308.73 3.52% 2007 $0.00 Total $237,160.00 % 1 14.82% $ % 1 $ % $ Total Dollars 2 Awarded % 1 $ $9,924,864.24 13.10% $24,031,328.25 31.73% $51,704,655.04 68.27% $75,735,983.29 $6,801,144.72 6.09% $13,252,252.98 11.86% $24,006,102.63 21.48% $87,729,238.72 78.52% $111,735,341.35 0.00% $4,388,235.68 2.99% $20,079,865.60 13.69% $33,429,109.38 22.79% $113,286,062.43 77.21% $146,715,171.81 $0.00 0.00% $18,506,067.25 13.84% $15,074,080.63 11.28% $44,299,829.75 33.14% $89,383,528.93 66.86% $133,683,358.68 $0.00 0.00% $12,578,249.34 6.32% $20,779,241.67 10.45% $40,356,799.74 20.29% $158,579,461.34 79.71% $198,936,261.08 0.00% $4,071,023.22 3.02% $2,243.00 0.00% $148,233.00 0.11% $21,311,953.42 15.79% $25,533,452.64 18.92% $109,450,413.76 81.08% $134,983,866.40 0.03% $37,349,960.53 4.66% $2,243.00 0.00% $53,645,000.32 6.69% $100,422,258.54 12.52% $191,656,622.39 23.90% $ 610,133,360.22 76.10% $801,789,982.61 Source: MGT database derived from prime contractor responses to verification report solicitations, and an estimated amount of subcontract dollars. Data provided by Construction Group Field Reports Section. 1 Percentage of the total estimated subcontractor dollars awarded. 2 Actual dollar amounts according to verification reports. 3 Calculated as estimated subcontract dollars less M/W/DBE subcontract dollars. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-15 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses EXHIBIT 4-11 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION SUBCONTRACTS AWARDED IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal Year African Americans %1 # Hispanic Americans %1 # Asian Americans %1 # Native Americans %1 # Nonminority Women %1 # M/WBE Subtotal # % Nonminority Total %1 # Total Contracts Awarded # 2002 0 0.00% 62 11.85% 0 0.00% 11 2.10% 125 23.90% 198 37.86% 325 62.14% 523 2003 3 0.44% 67 9.78% 0 0.00% 19 2.77% 156 22.77% 245 35.77% 440 64.23% 685 2004 1 0.13% 91 12.25% 0 0.00% 7 0.94% 149 20.05% 248 33.38% 495 66.62% 743 2005 1 0.13% 63 7.89% 0 0.00% 15 1.88% 172 21.55% 251 31.45% 547 68.55% 798 2006 0 0.00% 56 8.28% 0 0.00% 9 1.33% 125 18.49% 190 28.11% 486 71.89% 676 2007 Total Contracts 0 0.00% 35 7.54% 1 0.00% 1 0.22% 67 14.44% 104 22.41% 360 77.59% 464 5 0.13% 374 9.62% 1 0.03% 62 1.59% 794 20.42% 1,236 31.78% 2,653 68.22% 3,889 Source: MGT database derived from prime contractor responses to verification report solicitations. Data provided by Construction Group Field Reports Section. 1 Percentage of M/W/DBE subtotal of awards. In Exhibit 4-11 and Exhibit 4-12 we also analyzed the distribution of M/W/DBE subcontracts awarded and subcontractors that were actually utilized by ADOT, according to electronic data, by race, ethnicity, and gender. ADOT let 3,889 subcontracts to 583 unique subcontractors. Of the 3,889 subcontracts let, 1,236 were let to 105 unique M/W/DBE firms. In terms of number of subcontracts, we noted that the level of activity in 2005 was greater than subcontract activity in other years of the study period. M/W/DBEs were more successful in 2002. EXHIBIT 4-12 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION NUMBER OF UTILIZED INDIVIDUAL SUBCONTRACTORS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal Year African Americans %1 # Hispanic Americans %1 # Asian Americans %1 # Native Americans %1 # Nonminority Women %1 # M/WBE Subtotal # % Nonminority Total %1 # Total Firms # 2002 0 0.00% 18 11.54% 0 0.00% 2 1.28% 22 14.10% 42 26.92% 114 73.08% 156 2003 2 0.87% 20 8.73% 0 0.00% 5 2.18% 30 13.10% 57 24.89% 172 75.11% 229 2004 1 0.50% 17 8.50% 0 0.00% 2 1.00% 31 15.50% 51 25.50% 149 74.50% 200 2005 1 0.39% 21 8.14% 0 0.00% 5 1.94% 37 14.34% 64 24.81% 194 75.19% 258 2006 0 0.00% 18 7.53% 0 0.00% 5 2.09% 29 12.13% 52 21.76% 187 78.24% 239 2007 0 0.00% 14 7.04% 1 0.00% 1 0.50% 22 11.06% 38 19.10% 161 80.90% 199 0.51% 46 7.89% 1 0.17% 8 1.37% 47 8.06% 105 18.01% 478 81.99% 583 Individual Firms Over Six Years 2 3 Source: MGT database derived from prime contractor responses to verification report solicitations. Data provided by Construction Group Field Reports Section. 1 Percentage of M/W/DBE subtotal. 2 Individual Firms‖ counts a firm only once for each year it receives work. Because a firm could be used in multiple years, the individual Firms‖ for the entire study period may not equal the sum of all years. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-16 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses 4.2.3 Availability The availability of construction firms was derived from the list of all firms that bid on ADOT contracts. However, the availability analysis is based only on firms that were located within the state of Arizona. As shown in Exhibit 4-13, M/W/DBEs accounted for 8.6 percent of construction contractors available to do business with ADOT. Nonminority women-owned firms were the larger group, accounting for 6.6 percent of the total M/W/DBE construction contractors. The data provided to us did not distinguish prime contractors from subcontractors. EXHIBIT 4-13 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION AVAILABILITY OF PRIME BIDDERS BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 African Total Hispanic Americans # % 0 0.00% Americans # % 3 1.52% Asian Americans # % 0 0.00% Native Nonminority Americans # % 1 0.51% Women # 13 % 6.57% M/WBE Subtotal # % 17 8.59% Non-Minority Total Firms # % 181 91.41% 198 Source: ADOT’s Bidder’s List. Data provided by Construction Group Field Reports Section. 1 Minority female firms are included in their respective minority classifications. Exhibit 4-14 displays availability percentages for subcontractors, indicating that nonminority-owned firms accounted for 84.4percent of all construction subcontractors. For M/W/DBE subcontractor availability, by individual race/ethnicity/gender category Nonminority Women-owned firms 7.7 percent, Hispanic American firms 6.3 percent, Native American firms 1.2 percent, African American firms .38 percent, and Asian American firms 0.13 percent. EXHIBIT 4-14 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AVAILABILITY OF SUBCONTRACTORS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATION Total African Americans1 # % 3 0.38% Hispanic Asian Americans1 Americans1 # % # % 49 6.27% 1 0.13% Native Americans1 # % 9 1.15% Nonminority Women # % 60 7.68% MWBE Subtotal # % 122 15.62% Nonminority Total Firms Firms # % 659 84.38% 781 Source: MGT’s Master Vendor Database. Data provided by Construction Group Field Reports Section. 1 Minority men and women firms are included in their respective minority classifications. 4.2.4 Analyses of Bid Data Exhibit 4-15(a) shows the results of data analysis of construction bids submitted during the study period. Exhibits 15(a) and 15(b) show the bids submitted categorized by the race, ethnicity, and gender of the business owner of the bidding firm and a breakout by range classification of the submitted bids. Based on the analysis, M/W/DBEs submitted 9.8 percent of construction bids for work to be performed for ADOT. Most firms that submitted bids were prequalified by ADOT to bid on contracts of $100,000 to $1 million. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-17 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses EXHIBIT 4-15(a) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS OF BID DATA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Number of Bids Submitted Total African Americans # % 0 0.00% Hispanic Americans # % 4 0.11% Asian Americans # % 0 0.00% Native Americans # % 2 0.06% Nonminority Women # % 348 9.66% M/WBE Subtotal # % 354 9.83% Nonminority Firms # % 3,249 90.17% Total 3,603 Source: ADOT Bid Data. Data provided by Construction Group Field Reports Section. EXHIBIT 4-15(b) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS OF BID DATA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Bids Submitted by Firm’s Bid Range Range1 A B C Not Provided Total African Americans # % 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 1 0.03% Hispanic Americans # % 0 0.00% 3 0.00% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 0.00% Asian Americans # % 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Native Americans # % 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Nonminority Women # % 11 3.20% 247 71.80% 86 25.00% 0 0.00% 344 9.40% M/WBE Subtotal # % 11 3.15% 250 71.63% 87 24.93% 1 0.29% 349 9.54% Nonminority Firms # % 103 3.11% 1,378 41.64% 1,762 53.25% 66 1.99% 3,309 90.46% Total Source: ADOT Bid Data. Data provided by Construction Group Field Reports Section. 1 A – less than $100,000; B – $100,000 to $1 million; C > $1 million. Note: The number of bids shown in the tables is not inclusive of all projects for which bids were submitted during the study period. The data shown above represent only those projects on which bid information was available in the electronic data provided. Exhibit 4-16 presents a comparison of the number of construction contracts awarded (see Exhibit 4-5) with the number of bids submitted by business owner classification. The exhibit shows that firms owned by nonminority women were most successful in winning contract awards than firms in other M/W/DBE business owner classifications. This determination is based on the finding where the respective ratio was greater than 1. The exhibit also shows that African American-, Hispanic American-, Asian American-, and Native American-owned firms were least likely to be contract winners during the study period. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-18 114 1,628 1,849 67 3,658 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses EXHIBIT 4-16 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION COMPARISON OF % CONTRACTS AWARDED TO BIDS SUBMITTED BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Business Owner Classification % Contract Awards % Bids Ratio African Americans 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 Hispanic Americans 0.00% 0.11% 0.00 Asian Americans 0.00% 0.00% 0.00 Native Americans 0.00% 0.06% 0.00 Nonminority Women 7.32% 9.66% 0.76 92.68% 90.17% 1.03 Non-M/WBEs Source: Previous Charts. 4.3 Architecture and Engineering This section presents the analysis for the architecture and engineering business category. This analysis is based on ADOT contract awards to firms providing architectural and engineering services. This section shows the results of the relevant market area determination as well as the utilization and availability analysis of M/W/DBEs and non-M/W/DBEs as architecture and engineering consultants. 4.3.1 Relevant Market Area Analysis The data showed that ADOT let $258.6 million in architecture and engineering contracts during the study period. Overall, 459 contracts were awarded to 108 individual firms. Exhibit 17 shows the location of firms awarded architecture and engineering contracts by the respective firms’ county of domicile and the dollar amount. The relevant market area for the architecture and engineering business category consisted of the state of Arizona. Over 99 percent of the overall total spent on architecture and engineering contracts were awarded to firms in the relevant market area, which represented 457 contracts to 106 firms. Appendix A shows the architecture and engineering contracts which were included in the analysis. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-19 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses EXHIBIT 4-17 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING RELEVANT MARKET AREA ANALYSIS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 # of % of # of % of % of 2 Contracts Contracts Firms Firms Dollars Dollars Cum% 418 91.07% 93 86.11% $228,300,565.61 88.30% 88.30% 35 7.63% 10 9.26% $28,985,120.00 11.21% 99.51% 1 0.22% 1 0.93% $628,453.00 0.24% 99.75% 1 0.22% 1 0.93% $282,435.02 0.11% 99.86% 2 0.44% 1 0.93% $120,000.00 0.05% 99.91% ALLEGHENY, PA 1 0.22% 1 0.93% $188,725.08 0.07% 99.98% ADAMS, CO 1 0.22% 1 0.93% $50,000.00 0.02% 100.00% Total 459 100.00% 108 100.00% $258,555,298.71 100.00% Source: The Arizona Department of Transportation’s Engineering Consultants Section. 1 Counties above the line are included in the relevant market area. 2 Cumulative total of percentage of dollars in market area. County, State MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ YUMA, AZ GRAHAM, AZ NAVAJO, AZ 4.3.2 Utilization Analysis Exhibit 4-18 presents the utilization analysis of architecture and engineering prime consultants in ADOT’s relevant market area and shows that M/W/DBEs received 14.2 percent of the awarded architecture and engineering contract dollars. Nonminority firms accounted for 85.9 percent of the architecture and engineering contracts granted during the six-year study period. Asian American-owned firms were the most successful M/W/DBE group, receiving almost $26.9 million (10.4%) in architecture and engineering contracts. Hispanic American-owned firms received $7.7 million, representing almost 3 percent of the total $258. 3 million spent in architecture and engineering contracts. EXHIBIT 4-18 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING UTILIZATION ANALYSIS OF PRIME CONSULTANTS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal African Hispanic Asian Native Nonminority M/WBE Nonminority Total Year Americans Americans Americans Americans Women Subtotal Firms Dollars Awarded %1 $ %1 $ $ %1 %1 $ %1 $ $ %1 $ %1 $ 2002 $0 0.00% $758,050 1.64% $3,896,793 8.45% $100,000 0.22% $73,622 0.16% $4,828,465 10.47% $41,278,734 89.53% $46,107,199 2003 $250,000 0.45% $450,000 0.81% $4,317,559 7.82% $0 0.00% $86,377 0.16% $5,103,936 9.24% $50,128,365 90.76% $55,232,301 2004 $0 0.00% $3,210,020 11.07% $800,273 2.76% $172,530 0.59% $425,000 1.47% $4,607,823 15.89% $24,392,539 84.11% $29,000,362 2005 $0 0.00% $1,174,999 2.62% $3,706,000 8.27% $721,010 1.61% $125,000 0.28% $5,727,009 12.78% $39,082,216 87.22% $44,809,225 2006 $0 0.00% $1,488,997 5.92% $4,388,380 17.44% $0 0.00% $33,000 0.13% $5,910,377 23.48% $19,256,793 76.52% $25,167,170 2007 $0 0.00% $602,640 1.04% $9,783,491 16.87% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $10,386,131 17.91% $47,614,186 82.09% $58,000,317 Total $250,000 0.10% $7,684,706 2.97% $26,892,496 10.41% $993,540 0.38% $742,999 0.29% $36,563,741 14.15% $221,752,833 85.85% $258,316,574 Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by Engineering Consultants Section. 1 Percent of dollars awarded annually to prime consultants. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-20 1 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses Exhibit 4-19 shows the utilization by the number of contracts let during the study period. Nonminority firms received 85.8 percent of the architecture and engineering contracts let by ADOT during the study period. Hispanic American-owned firms received 30 contracts; Asian American-owned firms were next receiving 22 of the 457 contracts awarded. EXHIBIT 4-19 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING PRIME CONTRACTS AWARDED IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal Year African Americans %1 # Hispanic Americans %1 # Asian Americans %1 # Native Americans Nonminority Women %1 # M/WBE Subtotal %1 # %1 # Total Contracts Awarded Nonminority Firms %1 # # 2002 0 0.00% 7 7.69% 6 6.59% 1 1.10% 2 2.20% 16 17.58% 75 82.42% 91 2003 1 1.20% 4 4.82% 3 3.61% 0 0.00% 1 1.20% 9 10.84% 74 89.16% 83 2004 0 0.00% 4 5.13% 4 5.13% 1 1.28% 3 3.85% 12 15.38% 66 84.62% 78 2005 0 0.00% 4 5.88% 3 4.41% 1 1.47% 2 2.94% 10 14.71% 58 85.29% 68 2006 0 0.00% 6 8.57% 4 5.71% 0 0.00% 1 1.43% 11 15.71% 59 84.29% 70 2007 0 0.00% 5 7.46% 2 2.99% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 10.45% 60 89.55% 67 Total Contracts 1 0.22% 30 6.56% 22 4.81% 3 0.66% 9 1.97% 65 14.22% 392 85.78% 457 Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by Engineering Consultants Section. 1 Percentage of total contracts. Exhibit 4-20 shows the distribution of individual architecture and engineering prime level consultants that performed work for ADOT during the study period. EXHIBIT 4-20 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL PRIME CONSULTANTS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA AWARDS BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal Year African Americans %1 # Hispanic Americans %1 # Asian Americans %1 # Native Americans %1 # Nonminority Women %1 # # M/WBE Subtotal %1 Nonminority Firms %1 # Total Firms # 2002 0 0.00% 4 7.41% 4 7.41% 1 1.85% 2 3.70% 11 20.37% 43 79.63% 54 2003 1 2.17% 2 4.35% 2 4.35% 0 0.00% 1 2.17% 6 13.04% 40 86.96% 46 2004 0 0.00% 4 10.53% 1 2.63% 1 2.63% 3 7.89% 9 23.68% 29 76.32% 38 2005 0 0.00% 2 6.06% 1 3.03% 1 3.03% 1 3.03% 5 15.15% 28 84.85% 33 2006 0 0.00% 4 11.11% 1 2.78% 0 0.00% 1 2.78% 6 16.67% 30 83.33% 36 2007 0 0.00% 3 8.33% 1 2.78% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 11.11% 32 88.89% 36 0.94% 6 5.66% 4 3.77% 2 1.89% 5 4.72% 18 16.98% 88 83.02% 106 Individual Firms Over Six Years2 1 Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by Engineering Consultants Section. 1 Percentage of Total Consultants. 2 ―Individual Firms‖ counts a firm only once for each year it receives work. Since a firm could be used in multiple years, the total firms for the entire study period may not equal the sum of all years. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-21 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses Threshold Analysis MGT further analyzed the utilization of M/W/DBE architecture and engineering firms by examining architecture and engineering awards in specific dollar ranges. The established ranges were: Contracts $100,000 and under. Contracts between $100,001 and $1 million. Contracts over $1 million.    Exhibit 4-21 presents the threshold analysis for architectural and engineering contracts awarded by ADOT during the study period. We show that 210 out of 457 ADOT architecture and engineering procurements were in the ―less than or equal to $100,000‖ range. In each threshold category, nonminority firms were more successful. M/W/DBE firms received 17.6 percent of the less than or equal to $100,000 contracts and 12.1 percent of the contracts between $100,001 and $1 million in architecture and engineering contracts, as noted earlier in this section. Of the 457, the threshold analysis shows that M/W/DBEs received six of those contract awards in the highest of the dollar categories analyzed. Exhibit 4-22 shows these numbers as a graphical representation. EXHIBIT 4-21 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UTILIZATION OF ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATION BY DOLLAR CATEGORIES JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Threshold African Americans Hispanic Americans %1 0 0.00% 20 9.52% 8 3.81% 1 0.48% 8 Between $100,001 and $1 million 1 0.55% 10 5.49% 8 4.40% 2 1.10% Greater than $1 million 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 9.23% 0 1 0.22% 30 6.56% 22 4.81% 3 Total # %1 Nonminority Women # # %1 Native Americans Less than or Equal to $100,000 # %1 Asian Americans Nonminority Firms %1 # 3.81% 37 17.62% 173 82.38% 210 1 0.55% 22 12.09% 160 87.91% 182 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 59 90.77% 65 0.66% 9 1.97% 65 392 85.78% 457 9.23% 14.22% %1 Total Contracts Awarded # # # %1 M/WBE Subtotal Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by Engineering Consultants Section. 1 Percentage of total dollars awarded annually to prime contractors. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-22 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses EXHIBIT 4-22 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UTILIZATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS WITHIN CONTRACT DOLLAR RANGES JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Exhibit 4-23 shows the dollar amounts awarded for the contracts in the respective dollar threshold categories for nonminority firms. EXHIBIT 4-23 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING CONTRACT AWARD AMOUNTS BY THRESHOLD AWARD JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Threshold African Americans $ %1 Hispanic Americans $ %1 Asian Americans $ Native Americans %1 $ %1 Less than or Equal to $100,000 $0 0.00% $1,274,666 9.42% $543,670 4.02% $100,000 0.74% Between $100,001 and $1 million $250,000 0.31% $6,410,040 7.96% $2,293,065 2.85% $893,540 1.11% Greater than $1 million Total $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $24,055,761 14.65% Nonminority Women $ %1 $492,999 3.64% M/WBE Subtotal $ Nonminority Firms %1 $ %1 Total Contracts Awarded $ $2,411,335 17.83% $11,115,249 82.17% $13,526,584 $250,000 0.31% $10,096,645 12.54% $70,434,985 87.46% $80,531,630 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $24,055,761 14.65% $140,202,598 85.35% $164,258,359 $250,000 0.10% $7,684,706 2.97% $26,892,496 10.41% $993,540 0.38% $742,999 0.29% $36,563,741 14.15% $221,752,833 85.85% $258,316,574 Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by Engineering Consultants Section. 1 Percentage of total contracts awarded annually to prime contractors. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-23 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses Architecture and Engineering Subconsultants Exhibit 4-24 shows the results of the analysis of the architectural and engineering subconsultant activity during the study period. MGT analyzed activity with subconsultants that performed work for prime consultants domiciled within the identified relevant market area for ADOT. The architecture and engineering subconsultant data used for this analysis were manually collected onsite within ADOT’s Engineering Consultants Section. Exhibit 4-24 shows that subconsultants performed $2.5 million of subconsulting work on architectural and engineering projects. Based on data collected, M/W/DBEs received 44.4 percent of the subconsultant dollars for architecture and engineering services. Firms owned by nonminorities received 55.6 percent of the architectural and engineering subconsultant contracts during the study period. According to the available data provided by ADOT, there was no consulting work performed on prime architecture and engineering contracts in the 2002, 2004, and 2005 fiscal years. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-24 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses EXHIBIT 4-24 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING UTILIZATION ANALYSIS OF SUBCONSULTANTS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA DOLLARS AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DOLLARS AWARDED BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal African Hispanic Asian Native Nonminority M/WBE Nonminority Year Americans Americans Americans Americans Women Subtotal Total $ %1 %1 $ %1 $ %1 $ %1 $ $ % Total Dollars 2 Awarded %1 $ $ 2002 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 2003 $0.00 0.00% $282,734.00 27.82% $384,279.00 0.00% $145,622.00 14.33% $0.00 0.00% $812,635.00 79.96% $203,638.00 20.04% $1,016,273.00 2004 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 2005 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 2006 $0.00 0.00% $55,182.00 9.71% $147,164.00 25.90% $24,788.00 4.36% $0.00 0.00% $227,134.00 39.98% $341,041.00 60.02% $568,175.00 2007 $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $74,114.00 8.03% $74,114.00 8.03% $848,420.00 91.97% $922,534.00 Total $0.00 0.00% $337,916.00 13.48% $531,443.00 21.20% $170,410.00 6.80% $74,114.00 2.96% $1,113,883.00 55.57% $2,506,982.00 44.43% $ 1,393,099.00 Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by Engineering Consultants Section. 1 Percentage of subconsultant awards. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-25 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses Exhibits 4-25 and 4-26 show the distribution of subconsultant awards and firms that performed work during the study period. Exhibit 4-25 shows that eight architectural and engineering subcontracts were awarded to nonminority firms and nine were awarded to M/WBEs. Exhibit 4-26 shows that five nonminority firms performed work for ADOT as architectural and engineering subconsultants, as well as two Hispanic American firms, two Asian American firms, one Native American firm, and one nonminority womanowned firm. EXHIBIT 4-25 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINNEERING SUBCONTRACTS AWARDED IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal Year African Americans %1 # Hispanic Americans %1 # Asian Americans %1 # Native Americans %1 # Nonminority Women %1 # M/WBE Subtotal # % Nonminority Total %1 # Total Contracts Awarded # 2002 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 2003 0 0.00% 2 40.00% 1 0.00% 1 20.00% 0 0.00% 4 80.00% 1 20.00% 5 2004 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 2005 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 2006 0 0.00% 1 16.67% 1 16.67% 1 16.67% 0 0.00% 3 50.00% 3 50.00% 6 2007 Total Contracts 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 4 66.67% 6 0 0.00% 3 17.65% 2 11.76% 2 11.76% 2 11.76% 9 52.94% 8 47.06% 17 Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by Engineering Consultants Section. 1 Percentage of total contracts awarded annually to prime consultants. EXHIBIT 4-26 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL SUBCONSULTANTS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal Year African Americans %1 # Hispanic Americans %1 # Asian Americans %1 # Native Americans %1 # Nonminority Women %1 # # M/WBE Subtotal % Nonminority Total %1 # Total Firms # 2002 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 2003 0 0.00% 2 40.00% 1 0.00% 1 20.00% 0 0.00% 4 80.00% 1 20.00% 5 2004 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 2005 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 2006 0 0.00% 1 16.67% 1 16.67% 1 16.67% 0 0.00% 3 50.00% 3 50.00% 6 2007 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.00% 1 0.00% 2 66.67% 3 0.00% 2 18.18% 2 18.18% 1 9.09% 1 9.09% 6 54.55% 5 45.45% 11 Individual Firms Over Six Years 2 0 Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by Engineering Consultants Section. 1 Percentage of Total Firms. 2 ―Individual Firms‖ counts a firm only once for each year it receives work. Because a firm could be used in multiple years, the ―Individual Firms‖ for the entire study period may not equal the sum of all years. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-26 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses 4.3.3 Availability The availability of prime consultants is derived from MGT’s Master Vendor Database. Exhibit 4-27 shows the available architecture and engineering consultants that are located in the relevant market area. Of the 412 available architecture and engineering firms, 97 were M/W/DBEs and 315 were nonminority firms. Nonminority women had the greatest number of available firms among the M/W/DBE group, with 38, and Asian Americans were next, with 27. Exhibit 4-28 shows the available architecture and engineering subconsultants. EXHIBIT 4-27 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING AVAILABILITY OF PRIME CONSULTANTS BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Total African Americans1 # % 6 1.46% Hispanic Americans1 # % 22 5.34% Asian Americans1 # % 27 6.55% Native Americans1 # % 6 1.46% Nonminority Women # % 38 9.22% M/WBE Subtotal # % 99 24.03% Nonminority Firms # % 313 75.97% Total Firms Nonminority Firms # % 428 72.91% Total Firms 412 Source: MGT’s Master Vendor Database. Data provided by Engineering Consultants Section. 1 Minority male and female firms are included in their respective minority classifications. EXHIBIT 4-28 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING AVAILABILITY OF SUBCONSULTANTS BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Total African Americans1 # % 9 1.53% Hispanic Americans1 # % 38 6.47% Asian Americans1 # % 39 6.64% Native Americans1 # % 9 1.53% Nonminority Women # % 64 10.90% MWBE Subtotal # % 159 27.09% Source: MGT’s Master Vendor Database. Data provided by Engineering Consultants Section. 1 Minority male and female firms are included in their respective minority classifications. 4.4 Professional Services This section presents MGT’s analysis for the professional services business category. This analysis is based on ADOT contract awards to firms providing professional services. This section shows the results of the relevant market area determination as well as the utilization and availability analysis of M/W/DBEs and non-M/W/DBEs as professional service consultants. 4.4.1 Relevant Market Area Analysis The data showed that ADOT let over $84 million in professional service contracts during the study period. Overall, 243 contracts were awarded to 205 individual firms. Exhibit 4-29 MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-27 587 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses shows the location of firms awarded professional services contracts by the respective firms’ county of domicile and the dollar amount. The relevant market area for the professional services business category consisted of the state of Arizona, as shown in Exhibit 4-29. Approximately $56.8 million (67.6%) of the $84 million in total professional service awards were awarded to firms in the relevant market area, which represented 161 contracts to 132 firms. Appendix A shows the professional services contracts that were included in the analysis. EXHIBIT 4-29 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELEVANT MARKET AREA ANALYSIS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 # of County, State MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MOHAVE, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YUMA, AZ GILA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ COCONINO, AZ WAYNE, NY VENTURA, CA PALM BEACH, FL RICHMOND (CITY), VA FRANKLIN, OH EAU CLAIRE, WI FAIRFIELD, CT ROUTT, CO OGLE, IL COOK, IL DENVER, CO SAN FRANCISCO, CA PHILADELPHIA, PA SALT LAKE, UT SUFFOLK, MA FULTON, GA LOS ANGELES, CA HARRIS, TX DALLAS, TX MONTGOMERY, MD KING, WA ARLINGTON, VA ORANGE, CA FAIRFAX, VA CUYAHOGA, OH ALAMEDA, CA WASHINGTON, DC ALEXANDRIA (CITY), VA ALBANY, NY CLAYTON, GA WAYNE, MI FLAGLER, FL BRAZOS, TX PROVIDENCE, RI CHAMPAIGN, IL PRINCE GEORGE'S, MD GRANT, NM JACKSON, MO BOULDER, CO ERIE, NY EL PASO, CO OTHER Total % of # of Contracts Contracts Firms 129 53.09% 108 23 9.47% 16 2 0.82% 2 2 0.82% 2 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 2 0.82% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 6 2.47% 6 6 2.47% 6 7 2.88% 5 4 1.65% 4 3 1.23% 3 3 1.23% 2 2 0.82% 2 2 0.82% 2 5 2.06% 2 3 1.23% 2 2 0.82% 2 2 0.82% 2 2 0.82% 2 2 0.82% 2 2 0.82% 2 1 0.41% 1 2 0.82% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 2 0.82% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 1 0.41% 1 3 1.23% 3 243 98.77% 205 % of Firms 52.68% 7.80% 0.98% 0.98% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 2.93% 2.93% 2.44% 1.95% 1.46% 0.98% 0.98% 0.98% 0.98% 0.98% 0.98% 0.98% 0.98% 0.98% 0.98% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 0.49% 1.46% 100.00% % of Dollars $52,920,914.01 $2,288,490.81 $76,369.23 $1,975.00 $1,454,648.26 $65,963.01 $15,358.24 $12,589.44 $10,770.00 $9,800.00 $9,399.37 $7,771.50 $3,780.00 $2,636.50 $1,836.96 $1,390.00 $319.70 $2,823,302.61 $1,017,760.11 $2,462,634.26 $1,849,482.09 $3,864,483.76 $1,834,384.98 $1,414,403.58 $1,238,492.14 $650,121.87 $646,420.00 $500,205.02 $339,600.00 $304,130.82 $220,543.80 $39,552.69 $2,217,799.29 $1,936,124.00 $1,476,350.10 $409,013.08 $264,615.24 $253,394.81 $243,105.00 $212,379.00 $146,458.44 $136,597.55 $121,084.05 $109,626.00 $99,775.48 $99,762.00 $53,630.09 $49,776.00 $34,683.42 $73,376.14 $84,027,079.45 Dollars 62.98% 2.72% 0.09% 0.00% 1.73% 0.08% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.36% 1.21% 2.93% 2.20% 4.60% 2.18% 1.68% 1.47% 0.77% 0.77% 0.60% 0.40% 0.36% 0.26% 0.05% 2.64% 2.30% 1.76% 0.49% 0.31% 0.30% 0.29% 0.25% 0.17% 0.16% 0.14% 0.13% 0.12% 0.12% 0.06% 0.06% 0.04% 0.09% 100.00% Cum% 2 62.98% 65.70% 65.80% 65.80% 67.53% 67.61% 67.63% 67.62% 67.64% 67.65% 67.66% 67.67% 67.67% 67.67% 67.68% 67.68% 67.68% 71.04% 72.25% 75.18% 77.38% 81.98% 84.16% 85.85% 87.32% 88.10% 88.86% 89.46% 89.86% 90.23% 90.49% 90.54% 93.17% 95.48% 97.24% 97.72% 98.04% 98.34% 98.63% 98.88% 99.06% 99.22% 99.36% 99.49% 99.61% 99.73% 99.79% 99.85% 99.89% 99.98% 1 Source: The Arizona Department of Transportation’s Procurement Group. 1 Counties above the line are included in the relevant market area. 2 Cumulative total of percentage of dollars in market area. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-28 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses 4.4.2 Utilization Analysis Firms owned by nonminorities were utilized most often by ADOT on professional service projects during the study period. MGT noted that the percentage utilization for nonminority professional service firms was 86.8 percent or greater for each year of the study period. Exhibit 4-30 presents the utilization analysis of professional services prime consultants in ADOT relevant market area and shows that M/W/DBEs received 7.6 percent ($4.3 million) of the awarded professional services contract dollars. Firms owned by Hispanic Americans were the more successful M/W/DBE group, securing almost 4 percent ($2.3 million) of the professional services contracts awarded during the six-year study period. Next, in order of percentage utilization, were firms owned by nonminority women, 3.4 percent of the professional services contract awards. As a group, M/W/DBEs were most successful in 2005, when the level of participation was 13.2 percent of the professional services contract dollars awarded that year. The least successful year was 2007 when there was no M/W/DBE participation on professional services contracts. EXHIBIT 4-30 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES UTILIZATION ANALYSIS OF PRIME CONSULTANTS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA CONSOLIDATED DOLLARS AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DOLLARS BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal African Hispanic Asian Native Nonminority M/WBE Nonminority Total Year Americans Americans Americans Americans Women Subtotal Firms Dollars Awarded %1 $ %1 $ %1 $ %1 $ %1 $ %1 $ $ %1 $ 2002 $0 0.00% $1,744,014 8.02% $42,156 0.19% $0 0.00% $53,769 0.25% $1,839,939 8.46% $19,902,923 91.54% $21,742,862 2003 $0 0.00% $194,678 4.67% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $194,678 4.67% $3,977,978 95.33% $4,172,656 2004 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $729,450 10.16% $729,450 10.16% $6,446,902 89.84% $7,176,351 2005 $41,967 1.28% $391,246 11.96% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $433,213 13.24% $2,837,594 86.76% $3,270,807 2006 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $1,132,269 6.47% $1,132,269 6.47% $16,374,098 93.53% $17,506,367 2007 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $2,967,264 100.00% $2,967,264 Total $41,967 0.07% $2,329,938 4.10% $42,156 0.07% $0 0.00% $1,915,487 3.37% $4,329,548 7.62% $52,506,760 92.38% $56,836,308 Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by ADOT Procurement Group. 1 Percent of total dollars awarded annually to prime contractors. Exhibit 4-31 shows the utilization by the number of contracts let during the study period. M/W/DBE firms received 16 (9.9%) of the 161 professional services contracts let by ADOT. Hispanic American and nonminority women each received seven of the 16 professional services contracts let to M/W/DBEs. Both African American- and Asian American-owned firms received one contract. Nonminority firms received 90.1 percent (145 contracts) of the total 161 contracts let. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-29 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses EXHIBIT 4-31 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT AWARDS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal Year African Americans %1 # Hispanic Americans %1 # Asian Americans %1 # Native Americans Nonminority Women %1 # M/WBE Subtotal %1 # # Total Contracts Awarded Nonminority Firms %1 # %1 # 2002 0 0.00% 1 2.27% 1 2.27% 0 0.00% 2 4.55% 4 9.09% 40 90.91% 44 2003 0 0.00% 1 5.56% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 5.56% 17 94.44% 18 2004 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 10.71% 3 10.71% 25 89.29% 28 2005 1 3.13% 5 15.63% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 18.75% 26 81.25% 32 2006 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 10.53% 2 10.53% 17 89.47% 19 2007 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 20 100.00% 20 Total Contracts 1 0.62% 7 4.35% 1 0.62% 0 0.00% 7 4.35% 16 9.94% 145 90.06% 161 Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by ADOT Procurement Group. 1 Percentage of total contracts. Exhibit 4-32 shows the distribution of individual professional services prime level consultants that performed work for ADOT during the study period. Nonminority professional service firms were utilized in significantly greater proportions than M/W/DBEs and accounted for 89.4 percent of contracted firms. The analysis of the number of firms utilized showed that nonminority women-owned firms were next in the succession of firms utilized at 5.3 percent. EXHIBIT 4-32 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL PRIME CONSULTANTS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA AWARDS BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal Year African Americans %1 # Hispanic Americans %1 # Asian Americans %1 # Native Americans %1 # Nonminority Women %1 # # M/WBE Subtotal %1 Nonminority Firms %1 # Total Firms # 2002 0 0.00% 1 2.38% 1 2.38% 0 0.00% 2 4.76% 4 9.52% 38 90.48% 42 2003 0 0.00% 1 5.88% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 5.88% 16 94.12% 17 2004 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 10.71% 3 10.71% 25 89.29% 28 2005 1 3.70% 4 14.81% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 18.52% 22 81.48% 27 2006 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 11.11% 2 11.11% 16 88.89% 18 2007 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 18 100.00% 18 0.76% 5 3.79% 1 0.76% 0 0.00% 7 5.30% 14 10.61% 118 89.39% 132 Individual Firms Over Six Years2 1 Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by ADOT Procurement Group. 1 Percentage of Total Consultants. 2 ―Individual Firms‖ counts a firm only once for each year it receives work. Because a firm could be used in multiple years, the ―Individual Firms‖ for the entire study period may not equal the sum of all years. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-30 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses Threshold Analysis Exhibit 4-33 presents the threshold analysis for professional services contracts awarded by ADOT during the study period. We show that 89 out of 161 ADOT professional services procurements were in the ―less than or equal to $100,000‖ range. In each threshold category, nonminority firms were predominant. However, two M/W/DBE firms received a professional services contract from ADOT in the ―greater than $1,000,000‖ category, and four of the total 62 contracts in the ―between $100,001 and $1,000,000‖ category were awarded to M/W/DBEs. Previously, we observed that firms owned by Hispanic Americans and nonminority women were most successful among M/W/DBEs in winning professional services contracts from ADOT during the study period. The threshold analysis shows that most of those contract awards were in the lowest of the dollar categories analyzed. See Exhibit 4-34 for a graphical representation of these numbers. EXHIBIT 4-33 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UTILIZATION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONSULTANTS BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATION BY DOLLAR CATEGORIES JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Threshold African Americans Hispanic Americans %1 # Less than or Equal to $100,000 1 1.12% 4 4.49% 1 1.12% 0 Between $100,001 and $1 million 0 0.00% 2 3.23% 0 0.00% Greater than $1 million 0 0.00% 1 10.00% 0 1 0.62% 7 4.35% 1 # %1 Native Americans # Total %1 Asian Americans M/WBE Subtotal Nonminority Firms %1 Total Contracts Awarded # # %1 # %1 # 0.00% 4 4.49% 10 11.24% 79 88.76% 89 0 0.00% 2 3.23% 4 6.45% 58 93.55% 62 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 10.00% 2 20.00% 8 80.00% 10 0.62% 0 0.00% 7 4.35% 16 9.94% 145 90.06% 161 # %1 Nonminority Women Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by ADOT Procurement Group. 1 Percentage of total dollars awarded annually to prime contractors. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-31 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses EXHIBIT 4-34 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UTILIZATION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONSULTANTS WITHIN CONTRACT DOLLAR RANGES JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Exhibit 4-35 shows the dollar amounts awarded for the contracts in the respective dollar threshold categories. EXHIBIT 4-35 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT AWARD AMOUNTS BY THRESHOLD AWARD JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Threshold African Americans %1 $ Less than or Equal to $100,000 Hispanic Americans $ %1 Asian Americans %1 $ Native Americans %1 $ Nonminority Women $ %1 M/WBE Subtotal $ $41,967 1.51% $240,537 8.66% $42,156 1.52% $0 0.00% $79,535 2.86% Between $100,001 and $1 million $0 0.00% $345,387 1.54% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $709,153 3.16% $1,054,540 Greater than $1 million $0 0.00% $1,744,014 5.52% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $1,126,799 3.57% $41,967 0.07% $2,329,938 4.10% $42,156 0.07% $0 0.00% $1,915,487 3.37% Total Nonminority Firms %1 $404,195 14.56% $ %1 Total Contracts Awarded $ $2,372,009 85.44% $2,776,204 4.69% $21,407,419 95.31% $22,461,959 $2,870,813 9.09% $28,727,332 90.91% $31,598,145 $4,329,548 7.62% $52,506,760 92.38% $56,836,308 Source: MGT database of the ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by ADOT Procurement Group. 1 Percentage of total contracts awarded annually to prime contractors. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-32 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses 4.4.3 Availability The availability of professional service prime consultants was derived from MGT’s Master Vendor Database. Exhibit 4-36 shows the available professional services consultants that are located in the relevant market area. Of the 315 available professional services consultants within the relevant market area, 42 firms were M/W/DBEs, with nonminority women representing 7.3 percent of available firms and Hispanic Americans representing 2.2 percent. EXHIBIT 4-36 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AVAILABILITY OF PRIME CONSULTANTS BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Total African Americans1 # % 6 1.90% Hispanic Americans1 # % 7 2.22% Asian Americans1 # % 4 1.27% Native Americans1 # % 2 0.63% Nonminority Women # % 23 7.30% M/WBE Subtotal # % 42 13.33% Nonminority Firms # % 273 86.67% Source: MGT’s Master Vendor Database. Data provided by ADOT Procurement Group. 1 Minority male and female firms are included in their respective minority classifications. 4.5 Other Services The market area and utilization of other services procurements are examined in this section. Subcontractor analyses were not performed for other services vendors because this business category does not typically involve significant amounts of subcontract work. 4.5.1 Relevant Market Area Analysis Exhibit 4-37 presents the relevant market area analysis for other services procurements by ADOT and the dollars spent, which were approximately $34.6 million. Appendix A shows the other services procurements that were included in the analysis. The other services relevant market area consisted of the state of Arizona. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-33 Total Firms 315 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses EXHIBIT 4-37 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OTHER SERVICES RELEVANT MARKET AREA ANALYSIS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 # of County, State MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ COCONINO, AZ NAVAJO, AZ GILA, AZ YUMA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ COCHISE, AZ APACHE, AZ PINAL, AZ GRAHAM, AZ GREENLEE, AZ MOHAVE, AZ LA PAZ, AZ COOK, IL DALLAS, TX SALT LAKE, UT BANNOCK, ID ANGELINA, TX SAN JUAN, UT KANE, UT OAKLAND, MI LOS ANGELES, CA SONOMA, CA SAINT LOUIS CITY (CITY), MO % of # of % of Contracts Contracts Firms Firms 66 55.00% 44 47.83% 13 10.83% 12 13.04% 5 4.17% 5 5.43% 3 2.50% 3 3.26% 2 1.67% 2 2.17% 3 2.50% 2 2.17% 2 1.67% 2 2.17% 2 1.67% 2 2.17% 2 1.67% 1 1.09% 1 0.83% 1 1.09% 1 0.83% 1 1.09% 1 0.83% 1 1.09% 1 0.83% 1 1.09% 1 0.83% 1 1.09% 5 4.17% 4 4.35% 1 0.83% 1 1.09% 1 0.83% 1 1.09% 3 2.50% 1 1.09% 1 0.83% 1 1.09% 1 0.83% 1 1.09% 1 0.83% 1 1.09% 1 0.83% 1 1.09% 1 0.83% 1 1.09% 1 0.83% 1 1.09% 1 0.83% 1 1.09% Total 120 100.00% 92 100.00% Source: The Arizona Department of Transportation’s Procurement Group. 1 Counties above the line are included in the relevant market area. 2 Cumulative total of percentage of dollars in market area. 4.5.2 % of 2 Dollars Dollars Cum% $22,347,822.72 64.63% 64.63% $5,897,082.70 17.05% 81.68% $2,678,952.07 7.75% 89.43% $168,356.62 0.49% 89.91% $520,722.76 1.51% 91.42% $442,042.15 1.28% 92.70% $108,920.16 0.31% 93.01% $51,784.00 0.15% 93.16% $127,460.18 0.37% 93.53% $111,904.23 0.32% 93.85% $109,096.63 0.32% 94.17% $21,034.33 0.06% 94.23% $5,006.17 0.01% 94.25% $2,349.80 0.01% 94.25% $273,385.27 0.79% 95.04% $738,959.57 2.14% 97.18% $483,628.14 1.40% 98.58% $258,924.89 0.75% 99.33% $121,180.00 0.35% 99.68% $34,245.46 0.10% 99.78% $20,200.00 0.06% 99.84% $17,223.36 0.05% 99.88% $16,453.71 0.05% 99.93% $11,826.55 0.03% 99.97% $11,552.00 0.03% 100.00% $34,580,113.47 100.00% Utilization Analysis This section presents the utilization analysis of other services vendors, which includes an analysis of the number of contract awards and the number of individual firms utilized by race/ethnicity/gender classifications. The utilization analysis is presented in Exhibit 4-38. As shown, M/W/DBEs received 2.8 percent of the other services procurements made by ADOT during the study period. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-34 1 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses EXHIBIT 4-38 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OTHER SERVICES UTILIZATION ANALYSIS OF VENDORS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREAS CONTRACT AWARDS AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DOLLARS BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal African Hispanic Asian Native Nonminority M/WBE Nonminority Total Year Americans Americans Americans Americans Women Subtotal Firms Dollars Awarded $ %1 %1 $ $ %1 $ %1 %1 $ %1 $ $ %1 $ 2002 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $4,976,706 100.00% $4,976,706 2003 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $210,083 1.73% $210,083 1.73% $11,933,856 98.27% $12,143,939 2004 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $230,893 2.50% $230,893 2.50% $8,992,387 97.50% $9,223,279 2005 $0 0.00% $44,166 1.84% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $428,057 17.84% $472,223 19.68% $1,927,167 80.32% $2,399,391 2006 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $2,508,931 100.00% $2,508,931 2007 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $1,340,289 100.00% $1,340,289 Total $0 0.00% $44,166 0.14% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $869,033 2.67% $913,199 2.80% $31,679,336 97.20% $32,592,535 Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by ADOT Procurement Group. 1 Percentage of total contracts awarded annually to prime consultants. Of the M/W/DBE firms that provided other services to ADOT, nonminority women-owned firms were most utilized, receiving 2.7 of the dollars. African American-, Native American-, and Asian American-owned firms were not utilized as other services vendors. Exhibit 4-39 shows the number of other services payments made to firms in the relevant market area during the study period. ADOT utilized nonminority firms for 97 (94.2%) of its 103 other services procurements during the study period. Contracts awarded to M/W/DBEs represented only 5.8 percent of the total contracts awarded by ADOT, with nonminority women (five contracts) being the more successful M/W/DBE group. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-35 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses EXHIBIT 4-39 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OTHER SERVICES NUMBER OF PAYMENTS MADE BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal Year African Americans %1 # Hispanic Americans %1 # Asian Americans Native Americans %1 # Nonminority Women %1 # M/WBE Subtotal %1 # # Nonminority Firms %1 # Total Contracts Awarded %1 # 2002 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 22 100.00% 22 2003 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 9.09% 2 9.09% 20 90.91% 22 2004 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 13.33% 2 13.33% 13 86.67% 15 2005 0 0.00% 1 5.88% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 15 88.24% 17 2006 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 10 100.00% 10 2007 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 17 100.00% 17 Total Contracts 0 0.00% 1 0.97% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 4.85% 6 5.83% 97 94.17% 103 Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by ADOT Procurement Group. 1 Percentage of total payments made. Exhibit 4-40 shows that there were only two individual M/W/DBE firms utilized out of a total of 78 vendors that provided other services to ADOT. EXHIBIT 4-40 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OTHER SERVICES NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL PRIME VENDORS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA AWARDS BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal Year African Americans %1 # Hispanic Americans %1 # Asian Americans %1 # Native Americans %1 # Nonminority Women %1 # M/WBE Subtotal %1 # Nonminority Firms %1 # Total Firms # 2002 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 17 100.00% 17 2003 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 5.00% 1 5.00% 19 95.00% 20 2004 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 8.33% 1 8.33% 11 91.67% 12 2005 0 0.00% 1 6.67% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 6.67% 2 13.33% 13 86.67% 15 2006 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 10 100.00% 10 2007 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 16 100.00% 16 0.00% 1 1.28% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.28% 2 2.56% 76 78 Individual Firms Over Six Years2 0 97.44% Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by ADOT Procurement Group. 1 Percentage of total firms. 2 ―Individual Firms‖ counts a firm only once for each year it receives work. Because a firm could be used in multiple years, the ―Individual Firms‖ for the entire study period may not equal the sum of all years. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-36 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses Threshold Analysis Exhibit 4-41 presents the threshold analysis for other services contracts awarded by ADOT during the study period. The exhibit shows that 52 out of 103 of ADOT’s other services procurements were in the ―less than or equal to $100,000‖ range. In each threshold category, nonminority firms were predominant. No M/W/DBE vendor provided other services to ADOT in the ―greater than $1,000,000‖ category and only two of the total 103 contracts in the ―less than or equal to $100,000‖ category were awarded to M/W/DBEs. Exhibit 4-42 presents a graphical representation of the threshold analysis. EXHIBIT 4-41 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UTILIZATION OF OTHER SERVICES VENDORS BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATION BY DOLLAR CATEGORIES JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Threshold African Americans Hispanic Americans %1 # Less than or Equal to $100,000 0 0.00% 1 1.92% 0 0.00% 0 Between $100,001 and $1 million 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Greater than $1 million 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 1 0.97% 0 # %1 Native Americans # Total %1 Asian Americans M/WBE Subtotal Nonminority Firms %1 Total Contracts Awarded # # %1 # %1 # 0.00% 1 1.92% 2 3.85% 50 96.15% 52 0 0.00% 4 9.30% 4 9.30% 39 90.70% 43 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 100.00% 8 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 4.85% 6 5.83% 97 94.17% 103 # %1 Nonminority Women Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by ADOT Procurement Group. 1 Percentage of total dollars awarded annually to prime contractors. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-37 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses EXHIBIT 4-42 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UTILIZATION OF OTHER SERVICES VENDORS WITHIN CONTRACT DOLLAR RANGES JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Exhibit 4-43 shows the dollar amounts awarded for the contracts in the respective dollar threshold categories. EXHIBIT 4-43 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OTHER SERVICES CONTRACT AWARD AMOUNTS BY THRESHOLD AWARD JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Threshold African Americans Hispanic Americans 0.00% $44,166 2.16% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $76,049 3.72% $120,215 5.88% $1,924,860 94.12% $2,045,075 Between $100,001 and $1 million $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $792,984 6.82% $792,984 6.82% $10,827,756 93.18% $11,620,739 Greater than $1 million $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $18,926,720 100.00% $18,926,720 $0 0.00% $44,166 0.14% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $869,033 2.67% $913,199 2.80% $31,679,336 $32,592,535 $ %1 $ $ %1 Total Contracts Awarded $ $0 $ %1 Nonminority Firms Less than or Equal to $100,000 $ %1 M/WBE Subtotal %1 $ %1 Nonminority Women $ Total %1 Asian Native Americans Americans 97.20% Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by ADOT Procurement Group. 1 Percentage of total contracts awarded annually to prime contractors. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-38 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses 4.5.3 Availability The relative distribution of available other services vendors is presented in Exhibit 4-44. M/W/DBEs represented 15.2 percent of the available vendors. Nonminority womenowned firms accounted for 8.1 percent of available other services vendors and represented the largest M/W/DBE business owner category. Next were Hispanic American-owned firms, with 3.8 percent of available firms. EXHIBIT 4-44 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OTHER SERVICES AVAILABILITY OF VENDORS BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Total African Americans1 # % 4 1.90% Hispanic Americans1 # % 8 3.79% Asian Americans1 # % 2 0.95% Native Americans1 # % 1 0.47% Nonminority Women # % 17 8.06% M/WBE Subtotal # % 32 15.17% Nonminority Firms # % 179 84.83% Source: MGT’s Master Vendor Database. Data provided by ADOT Procurement Group. 1 Minority female firms are included in their respective minority classifications. 4.6 Goods and Supplies This section presents MGT’s analysis of the goods and supplies procurements for ADOT during the study period. The market area and utilization of M/W/DBEs and nonminorities are examined in this section. As with other services, there are few subcontracting opportunities for goods and supplies procurements, so MGT did not perform subcontract-level analysis for goods and supplies procurements. 4.6.1 Relevant Market Area Analysis ADOT expended over $95 million for goods and supplies procurements during the study period. This amount represents 328 contract awards to 248 vendors. Expenditures in the relevant market area included 57.7 percent of the total ADOT expenditures for goods and supplies. The goods and supplies relevant market area consisted of the state of Arizona. Exhibit 4-45 shows the location of all firms by county and dollar amount. Appendix A shows the goods and supplies procurements that were included in the analysis. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-39 Total Firms 211 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses EXHIBIT 4-45 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GOODS AND SUPPLIES RELEVANT MARKET AREA ANALYSIS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 # of County, State MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ COCONINO, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ GRAHAM, AZ YUMA, AZ MOHAVE, AZ GILA, AZ SANTA CRUZ, AZ COCHISE, AZ APACHE, AZ PINAL, AZ FRANKLIN, OH SHELBY, OH MULTNOMAH, OR CLARK, NV DANE, WI TRAVIS, TX FAYETTE, PA ALAMEDA, CA PASSAIC, NJ LIMESTONE, TX UNION, SD KALAMAZOO, MI BALTIMORE, MD NORTHAMPTON, PA ARAPAHOE, CO LAFAYETTE, LA DENVER, CO EAU CLAIRE, WI ONONDAGA, NY LOS ANGELES, CA COOK, IL ORANGE, CA DALLAS, TX HENNEPIN, MN SALT LAKE, UT KING, WA RICHMOND (CITY), VA SAINT LOUIS CITY (CITY), MO HAMILTON, OH HARRIS, TX DREW, AR STAFFORD, VA CUYAHOGA, OH WAYNE, MI HINDS, MS MC LENNAN, TX DELAWARE, OH BALDWIN, AL OKLAHOMA, OK VALENCIA, NM UTAH, UT MERIWETHER, GA OTHER Total % of # of Contracts Contracts Firms 129 39.33% 103 34 10.37% 19 11 3.35% 6 5 1.52% 4 4 1.22% 3 5 1.52% 2 3 0.91% 2 3 0.91% 2 4 1.22% 2 % of % of Firms 41.53% 7.66% 2.42% 1.61% 1.21% 0.81% 0.81% 0.81% 0.81% Dollars $46,171,284.44 $6,233,535.11 $910,118.18 $328,737.32 $360,398.97 $122,767.43 $121,079.85 $67,090.21 $53,575.60 Dollars 48.39% 6.53% 0.95% 0.34% 0.38% 0.13% 0.13% 0.07% 0.06% Cum% 2 1 1 1 1 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 1 1 1 1 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% $448,559.43 $190,651.53 $84,083.20 $51,311.22 0.47% 0.20% 0.09% 0.05% 57.45% 57.65% 57.74% 57.71% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 15 11 8 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 328 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 6.71% 4.57% 3.35% 2.44% 0.91% 0.61% 0.61% 0.61% 0.91% 0.61% 0.61% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 1.52% 0.61% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 5.49% 94.51% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 12 5 5 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 248 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 6.45% 4.84% 2.02% 2.02% 1.21% 0.81% 0.81% 0.81% 0.81% 0.81% 0.81% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 0.40% 6.85% 100.00% $47,099.54 $46,641.66 $38,811.14 $34,040.91 $26,252.25 $26,251.58 $23,967.00 $23,410.80 $12,375.00 $12,204.00 $10,426.11 $10,330.62 $8,409.39 $6,077.48 $4,465.00 $3,344.96 $2,933.76 $2,881.00 $700.00 $7,508,851.20 $2,649,215.91 $7,471,487.50 $3,540,592.08 $951,968.09 $415,243.32 $346,541.56 $247,770.27 $115,933.06 $107,825.39 $104,715.65 $4,791,164.94 $1,954,075.64 $1,884,204.75 $1,036,717.42 $970,759.32 $796,842.54 $514,386.31 $442,903.25 $415,365.21 $378,314.89 $329,733.30 $327,656.84 $2,626,726.81 $95,412,809.94 0.05% 0.05% 0.04% 0.04% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7.87% 2.78% 7.83% 3.71% 1.00% 0.44% 0.36% 0.26% 0.12% 0.11% 0.11% 5.02% 2.05% 1.97% 1.09% 1.02% 0.84% 0.54% 0.46% 0.44% 0.40% 0.35% 0.34% 2.75% 100.00% 57.76% 57.80% 57.85% 57.88% 57.91% 57.94% 57.96% 57.99% 58.00% 58.01% 58.02% 58.03% 58.04% 58.05% 58.05% 58.06% 58.06% 58.06% 58.06% 65.93% 68.71% 76.54% 80.25% 81.25% 81.68% 82.05% 82.31% 82.43% 82.54% 82.65% 87.67% 89.72% 91.70% 92.78% 93.80% 94.63% 95.17% 95.64% 96.07% 96.47% 96.82% 97.16% 99.91% Source: The Arizona Department of Transportation’s Procurement Group. 1 Counties above the line are included in the relevant market area. 2 Cumulative total of percentage of dollars in market area. MGT of America, Inc. 48.39% 54.92% 55.88% 56.22% 56.60% 56.73% 56.86% 56.93% 56.98% Page 4-40 1 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses 4.6.2 Utilization Analysis This section presents MGT’s analysis of ADOT’s utilization of goods and supplies vendors located in the relevant market areas during the study period. As shown in Exhibit 4-46, M/W/DBEs received almost 2 percent of the dollars spent by ADOT for goods and supplies during the study period. Conversely, nonminority firms received 98 percent. In dollar terms, nonminority goods and supplies vendors provided $54.1 million in goods and supplies to ADOT compared to $1.1 million provided by M/W/DBEs. EXHIBIT 4-46 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GOODS AND SUPPLIES UTILIZATION ANALYSIS OF VENDORS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA PAYMENTS MADE AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DOLLARS BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal African Hispanic Asian Native Nonminority M/WBE Nonminority Total Year Americans Americans Americans Americans Women Subtotal Firms Dollars Awarded $ %1 $ %1 $ %1 $ %1 %1 $ %1 $ $ %1 $ 2002 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $951,329 4.74% $951,329 4.74% $19,130,245 95.26% $20,081,575 2003 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $3,288,717 100.00% $3,288,717 2004 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $18,140,279 100.00% $18,140,279 2005 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $5,397,351 100.00% $5,397,351 2006 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $131,104 1.91% $131,104 1.91% $6,744,420 98.09% $6,875,524 2007 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $1,359,747 100.00% $1,359,747 Total $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $1,082,433 1.96% $1,082,433 1.96% $54,060,759 98.04% $55,143,192 Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by ADOT Procurement Group. 1 Percentage of dollars awarded annually to goods and supply vendors. The total number of goods and supplies payments made to firms in the relevant market area is shown in Exhibit 4-47. Two percent of these purchases were from M/W/DBE vendors. Among M/W/DBEs, nonminority woman-owned firms were the only utilized, constituting the 2 percent of dollars spent for goods and supplies and three contracts. African American-, Hispanic American-, Asian American-, and Native American-owned firms were not utilized in this business category. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-41 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses EXHIBIT 4-47 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GOODS AND SUPPLIES NUMBER OF PAYMENTS MADE BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal Year African Americans %1 # Hispanic Americans %1 # Asian Americans %1 # Native Americans Nonminority Women %1 # M/WBE Subtotal %1 # # Nonminority Firms %1 # Total Contracts Awarded %1 # 2002 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 2.94% 1 2.94% 33 97.06% 34 2003 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 24 100.00% 24 2004 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 53 100.00% 53 2005 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 47 100.00% 47 2006 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 8.70% 2 8.70% 21 91.30% 23 2007 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 21 100.00% 21 Total Contracts 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 1.49% 3 1.49% 199 98.51% 202 Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by ADOT Procurement Group. 1 Percentage of total payments. Exhibit 4-48 shows that out of 147 individual goods and supplies vendors, 144 were nonminority firms and three were M/W/DBEs. EXHIBIT 4-48 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL GOODS AND SUPPLIES VENDORS BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATION BY DOLLAR CATEGORIES JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal Year African Americans %1 # Hispanic Americans %1 # Asian Americans %1 # Native Americans %1 # Nonminority Women %1 # # M/WBE Subtotal %1 Nonminority Firms %1 # Total Firms # 2002 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 3.03% 1 3.03% 32 96.97% 33 2003 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 21 100.00% 21 2004 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 50 100.00% 50 2005 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 41 100.00% 41 2006 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 9.09% 2 9.09% 20 90.91% 22 2007 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 20 100.00% 20 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 2.04% 3 2.04% 144 97.96% 147 Individual Firms Over Six Years2 0 Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by ADOT Procurement Group. 1 Percentage of total payments made to vendors. 2 ―Individual Firms‖ counts a firm only once for each year it receives work. Because a firm could be used in multiple years, the ―Individual Firms‖ for the entire study period may not equal the sum of all years. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-42 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses Threshold Analysis Exhibit 4-49 presents the threshold analysis for goods and supplies contracts awarded by ADOT during the study period. The exhibit shows that 131 out of 202 ADOT goods and supplies procurements were in the ―less than or equal to $100,000‖ range. In each threshold category, nonminority firms were predominant. In fact, no M/W/DBE firms received a goods and supplies contract from ADOT in the ―greater than $1 million‖ category. EXHIBIT 4-49 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UTILIZATION OF GOODS AND SUPPLIES VENDORS BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATION BY DOLLAR CATEGORIES JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Threshold African Americans # %1 Hispanic Asian Americans Americans # %1 # Native Americans %1 # %1 Nonminority Women M/WBE Subtotal Nonminority Firms # %1 # %1 # %1 Total Contracts Awarded # Less than or Equal to $100,000 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 1.53% 2 1.53% 129 98.47% 131 Between $100,001 and $1 million 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.59% 1 1.59% 62 98.41% 63 Greater than $1 million 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 100.00% 8 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 1.49% 3 1.49% 199 98.51% 202 Total Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by ADOT Procurement Group. 1 Percentage of total dollars awarded annually to prime contractors. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-43 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses Exhibits 4-50 and 4-51 show the graphical representation of these numbers and the dollar amounts awarded for the contracts in the respective dollar threshold categories. EXHIBIT 4-50 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UTILIZATION OF GOODS AND SUPPLIES VENDORS WITHIN CONTRACT DOLLAR RANGES JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 EXHIBIT 4-51 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GOODS AND SUPPLIES PAYMENT AWARDS BY THRESHOLD AWARD JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Threshold African Americans $ %1 Hispanic Americans $ %1 Asian Native Americans Americans $ %1 $ %1 Nonminority Women %1 $ M/WBE Subtotal Nonminority Firms %1 $ %1 $ Total Contracts Awarded $ Less than or Equal to $100,000 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $131,104 2.75% $131,104 2.75% $4,640,671 97.25% $4,771,775 Between $100,001 and $1 million $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $951,329 4.13% $951,329 4.13% $22,088,714 95.87% $23,040,044 Greater than $1 million $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $27,331,374 100.00% $27,331,374 $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $1,082,433 1.96% $1,082,433 1.96% $54,060,759 $55,143,192 Total 98.04% Source: MGT database of ADOT’s procurement activity from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007. Data provided by ADOT Procurement Group. 1 Percentage of payments made. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-44 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses 4.6.3 Availability Exhibit 4-52 shows the availability analysis of goods and supplies vendors. M/W/DBEs represented 7.1 percent of the available goods and supplies vendors. Most of these were Hispanic American-owned firms and nonminority women-owned firms. Both accounted for 2.6 percent of the M/W/DBEs. EXHIBIT 4-52 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GOODS AND SUPPLIES AVAILABILITY OF VENDORS BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Total African Americans1 # % 1 0.37% Hispanic Asian Americans1 Americans1 # % # % 7 2.60% 1 0.37% Native Americans1 # % 3 1.12% Nonminority Women # % 7 2.60% M/WBE Subtotal # % 19 7.06% Nonminority Firms # % 250 92.94% Source: MGT’s Master Vendor Database. Data provided by ADOT Procurement Group. 1 Minority female firms are included in their respective minority classifications. 4.7 Summary This chapter presented the results of MGT’s analysis of the relevant market areas and utilization and availability of firms for the construction, architecture and engineering, professional services, other services, and goods and supplies business categories. In summary, M/W/DBEs received 1.3 percent of the prime construction contract dollars, and were utilized as prime contractors on 7.3 percent of ADOT’s construction contracts. M/W/DBEs experienced a higher level of participation (15.1%) on construction contracts. Trend-wise, though, the data showed that as the contract dollar amount increased, the level of M/W/DBE participation decreased. According to the analysis of the total estimated subcontract dollars, MWBEs received 23.9 percent. The analysis showed the following levels of M/W/DBE availability for construction prime contractors and subcontractors combined:      African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Women .38% 6.27% .13% 1.15% 7.68% The analysis of the contract awards for architecture and engineering services showed that M/W/DBEs received 14.2 percent of the prime level contract dollar awards, while nonminority-owned firms received 85.9 percent of the awarded architecture and engineering contract dollars. Also, M/W/DBEs had a participation level of 52.9 percent as architectural and engineering subconsultants. M/W/DBE firms were most successful as subconsultants based on the dollars awarded and the relative participation percentage. MGT’s research showed the following levels of M/W/DBE availability for prime consultants and subconsultants combined:  African Americans MGT of America, Inc. 1.53% Page 4-45 Total Firms 269 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses     Hispanic Americans 6.47% Asian Americans 6.64% Native Americans 1.53% Women 10.90% The analysis of the contract awards for professional services showed that M/W/DBEs received 7.6 percent of the prime level contract dollar awards. Hispanic American-owned firms were the most utilized M/W/DBE business owner group, accounting for 4.1 percent of the awarded professional services contract dollars. MGT’s research showed the following levels of M/W/DBE availability for prime consultants:      African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Women 1.90% 2.22% 1.27% .63% 7.30% In the other services business category, payments to M/W/DBEs represented 2.8 percent of the dollars expended by ADOT during the study period. Firms owned by nonminority women, followed by Hispanic Americans, were the more utilized groups of M/W/DBEs, receiving 2.7 and .14 percent, respectively, of the payments made by ADOT. The results of the availability analysis are as follows:      African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Women 1.90% 3.79% .95% .47% 8.06% In the goods and supplies business category, M/W/DBEs received 2 percent of payments made by ADOT. By business owner classification, no M/W/DBEs received any of the payments, except for nonminority women-owned firms, who received the 2 percent as mentioned earlier. The summary of the availability of goods and supplies firms is as follows:      African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Women .37% 2.60% .37% 1.12% 2.60% Exhibits 4-53, 4-54, and 4-55 summarize the analysis results presented in this chapter. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-46 Relevant Market Area, Utilization, and Availability Analyses EXHIBIT 4-53 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY OF UTILIZATION BY BUSINESS CATEGORY African American $0 Hispanic American $0 Nonminority Women $31,326,519.00 $0 $0 Nonminority Firms $2,409,577,535.00 Construction Subcontractors* $237,160.00 $37,349,960.53 $2,243.00 $53,645,00.32 $100,422,258.54 $610,133,360.22 Architecture and Engineering Primes $250,000.00 $7,684,706.00 $26,892,496.00 $993,540.00 $742,999.00 $699,445,251.00 Architecture and Engineering Subconsultants $0 $337,916.00 $531,443.00 $170,410.00 $74,114.50 $1,393,099.00 $41,967.00 $2,329,938.00 $42,156.00 $0 $1,915,487.00 $52,506,760.00 Other Services $0 $44,166.00 $0 $0 $869,033.00 $31,679,336.00 Goods and Supplies Vendors $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,082,433.00 $54,060,759.00 Business Category Construction Prime Contractors Professional Services Asian American Native American Source: Chapter 4.0, Analysis Results. *Actual dollars per verification reports for MWBEs and estimated calculation for Nonminorities. EXHIBIT 4-54 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PERCENTAGE UTILIZATION BY BUSINESS CATEGORY African American .00% Business Category Construction Prime Contractors Construction Subcontractors .03% Architecture and Engineering Primes Architecture and Engineering Subconsultants Hispanic American .00% Asian American .00% 4.66% .00% .10% 2.97% 10.41% .00% 13.48% 21.20% Professional Services .07% 4.10% .07% Other Services .00% .14% Goods and Supplies Vendors .00% .00% Native American .00% Nonminority Women 1.28% 6.69% Nonminority Firms 98.72% 12.52% 76.10% .38% .29% 85.85% 6.80% 2.96% 55.57% .00% 3.37% 92.38% .00% .00% 2.67% 97.20% .00% .00% 1.96% 98.04% Source: Chapter 4.0, Analysis Results. EXHIBIT 4-55 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY OF MINORITY AVAILABILITY BY BUSINESS CATEGORY Business Category Construction Primes African American .45% Hispanic American 4.73% Asian American .19% Native American .77% Nonminority Women 4.41% Construction Primes and Subs .38% 6.27% .13% 1.15% 7.68% Architecture and Engineering Primes 1.46% 4.85% 6.55% 1.46% 9.22% Architecture and Engineering Primes and Subs 1.53% 6.47% 6.64% 1.53% 10.90% Professional Services 1.90% 2.22% 1.27% .63% 7.30% Other Services 1.90% 3.79% .95% .47% 8.06% Goods and Supplies .37% 2.60% .37% 1.12% 2.60% Source: Chapter 4.0, Analysis Results. MGT of America, Inc. Page 4-47 5.0 DISPARITY ANALYSIS 5.0 DISPARITY ANALYSIS This chapter examines the issue of disparity within each business category of procurement. Disparity, in this context, is the analysis of the differences between the utilization of minority- and nonminority women-owned, and disadvantaged business enterprises (M/W/DBEs) and the availability of those firms. Accordingly, MGT of America, Inc., (MGT) used disparity indices to examine whether M/W/DBEs received a proportional share of dollars based on the availability of M/W/DBEs in the relevant market area. This chapter consists of the following sections: 5.1  Section 5.1 describes the methodology used by MGT to test for the presence or absence of disparity in each of the business categories.  Section 5.2 applies the disparity indices and t-tests to the business categories and determines the presence or absence of disparity in the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) procurement activity. Methodology MGT used the availability and utilization information presented in Chapter 4.0 of this report as the basis to determine if M/W/DBEs received a proportional share of contract awards and other procurements by ADOT. This determination is made primarily through the disparity index calculation that compares the utilization of firms with the availability of those firms. The disparity index also provides a value that can be given a commonly accepted substantive interpretation. The underlying assumption of this approach is that, absent discrimination, the proportion of dollars received by a particular M/W/DBE group should approximate that group’s proportion of the relevant population of firms. To determine if disparity exists for M/W/DBEs or nonminorities within a specific business category, MGT compared the utilization of each group to its respective availability within each of the relevant market areas. 5.1.1 Disparity Index The disparity index is used to measure the difference between utilization and availability. Several post-Croson cases, most notably Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania v. City of Philadelphia, support the use of disparity indices for determining disparity within the marketplace.1 Although a variety of similar indices could be utilized, the index used must be easily calculable, readily interpreted, and universally comparable. MGT pioneered the use of disparity indices as a method of determining the degree of disparity between utilization and availability. 1 Contractors Ass’n of Eastern Pennsylvania, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 91 F 3d at 603. MGT of America, Inc. Page 5-1 Disparity Analysis For this study, the ratio of the percentage of utilization to the percentage of availability multiplied by 100 serves as our measure of choice, as shown in the formula: %Um1p1 (1) Disparity Index = X 100 %Am1p1 Where: Um1p1 = utilization of M/W/DBE1 for procurement1 Am1p1 = availability of M/W/DBE1 for procurement1 Due to the mathematical properties involved in the calculations, a disparity index value of 0.00 indicates zero utilization. An index of 100 indicates parity between utilization and availability. Firms within a business category are considered underutilized if the disparity indices are less than 100, and overutilized if the indices are above 100. There is no standardized measure to evaluate levels of underutilization or overutilization within a procurement context. However, a tool is needed to determine which occurrences—particularly when there is underutilization—indicate the presence of factors other than those occurring during the normal course of business. Our rule of thumb is that a disparity index of less than 80 indicates that the level of disparity warrants further investigation. The disparity index threshold of 80 is based on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) adopted ―80 percent rule‖ in the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. In the context of employment discrimination, a disparity ratio below 80 indicates a substantial level of disparity demonstrating adverse or disparate impact. The Supreme Court accepted the use of the 80 percent rule in Connecticut v. Teal (Teal), 457 U.S. 440 (1982). In Teal and other affirmative action cases, the terms ―adverse impact,‖ ―disparate impact,‖ and ―discriminatory impact‖ are used interchangeably. Thus, MGT’s designation of disparity is founded on a Supreme Court decision. 5.1.2 T-Test In addition to the disparity index, MGT conducted t-tests to determine if statistically significant differences existed between utilization and availability in terms of contract or payment dollars or number of firms. In this study we are using the number of firms utilized and availability. The t-test determines if the relationship between utilization and availability (suggested by the disparity index value) supports a conclusion of disparity. In other words, the results of the t-test allow us to conclude if the relationships between utilization and availability are strong enough to state, with a high degree of confidence, that the results found in the disparity index represent real disparity. The t value indicates whether or not the results found in the disparity index are what one would ordinarily expect to find given the attributes of the sampling distribution. Given the large sample sizes involved, the t distribution approaches a normal distribution. Because of the statistical properties of the normal distribution, 95 percent of all cases can be found within two standard deviations of the mean. Since t values can be positive or negative, it is necessary to determine the critical region of the distribution on each end of the distribution. MGT of America, Inc. Page 5-2 Disparity Analysis Based on the properties of the normal distribution, the critical values are +1.96 and -1.96 (the calculated values +/- two standard deviations of the mean). Any t value found between these critical t values is not significant enough for us to conclude that there is disparity. For a conclusion of ―statistical significance‖ to be reached, the t value must be either greater than +1.96 or less than –1.96. When such a t value is present, we can say with 95 percent certainty that disparity, as represented by either overutilization or underutilization, is actually present. The previous discussion means that any t value less than or equal to –1.96 indicates that firms in a business category are underutilized in terms of available firms. The relationship is said to be statistically significant. In other words, the fact that the t value is so extreme means that we can be sufficiently confident that the underutilization is severe enough to be considered a real phenomenon and not just a statistical artifact of the sampling distribution. In some cases, disparity is indicated by the disparity index but cannot be tested with a t-test due to the mathematical constraint of division by zero. This will occur when there is zero utilization because the utilization percentage is the denominator in the final calculation for the t-test value. Although these cases cannot be tested to be statistically significant, the existence of disparity can be inferred due to the prima facie evidence of zero utilization levels. 5.2 Disparity Indices and T-Test Results Tables showing disparity indices and t-test results for construction, architecture and engineering, professional services, other services, and goods and supplies are analyzed in this section. The tables are based on the utilization and availability of M/W/DBEs and nonminorities in ADOT relevant market areas as shown in Chapter 4.0. 5.2.1 Construction Exhibit 5-1 shows that overall, nonminorities were overutilized during the study period and M/W/DBEs were generally underutilized based on the availability of those firms in the relevant market area. The disparity analysis by year shows that M/W/DBEs were underutilized in each year of the study period, while nonminorities were overutilized. MGT of America, Inc. Page 5-3 Disparity Analysis EXHIBIT 5-1 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF CONSTRUCTION PRIME CONTRACTORS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATION JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Business Owner % of Contract Dollars1 % of Available Firms2 Disparity Index3 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.74% 97.26% 0.00% 1.52% 0.00% 0.51% 6.57% 91.41% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.68 106.40 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * * 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.39% 99.61% 0.00% 1.52% 0.00% 0.51% 6.57% 91.41% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 108.96 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * * 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.83% 99.17% 0.00% 1.52% 0.00% 0.51% 6.57% 91.41% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.58 108.49 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * * 2005 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.18% 98.82% 0.00% 1.52% 0.00% 0.51% 6.57% 91.41% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.99 108.10 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * * 2006 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.29% 98.71% 0.00% 1.52% 0.00% 0.51% 6.57% 91.41% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.62 107.98 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * * 2007 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.55% 98.45% 0.00% 1.52% 0.00% 0.51% 6.57% 91.41% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.61 107.70 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * * 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.28% 98.72% 0.00% 1.52% 0.00% 0.51% 6.57% 91.41% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.55 107.99 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * * Classification 2002 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 2003 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 2004 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms All Years African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 1 Disparate Impact of Utilization The percentage of dollars is taken from the prime utilization exhibit previously shown. The percentage of available contractors is taken from the availability exhibit previously shown. 3 The disparity index is the ratio of % utilization to % availability times 100. * An asterisk is used to indicate a substantial level of disparity (index below 80.00). 2 MGT of America, Inc. Page 5-4 Disparity Analysis In Exhibit 5-2, the construction subcontractor disparity analysis for all years of the study period is shown. African American-, Hispanic American-, and Asian American-owned firms were underutilized overall, while Native American- and Nonminority Women-owned firms were overutilized as construction subcontractors. The construction subcontractor disparity analysis was based on the percentages of subcontractor dollars as well as the availability of firms as mentioned in Chapter 4.0. EXHIBIT 5-2 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF CONSTRUCTION SUBCONTRACTORS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATION JULY 1, 2002, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2005 Business Owner Classification 2002 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women 2003 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women 2004 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women 2005 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women 2006 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women 2007 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women All Fiscal Years African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women % of Subcontract % of Available Dollars1 Firms2 Disparity Index3 Disparate Impact of Utilization 0.00% 3.81% 0.00% 14.82% 13.10% 0.38% 6.27% 0.13% 1.15% 7.68% 0.00 60.68 0.00 1,285.93 170.58 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization Overutilization * * * 0.09% 3.44% 0.00% 6.09% 11.86% 0.38% 6.27% 0.13% 1.15% 7.68% 24.35 54.89 0.00 528.20 154.38 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization Overutilization * * * 0.06% 6.04% 0.00% 2.99% 13.69% 0.38% 6.27% 0.13% 1.15% 7.68% 16.86 96.32 0.00 259.55 178.15 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization Overutilization * 0.03% 7.99% 0.00% 13.84% 11.28% 0.38% 6.27% 0.13% 1.15% 7.68% 7.33 127.36 0.00 1,201.28 146.78 Underutilization Overutilization Underutilization Overutilization Overutilization * 0.00% 3.52% 0.00% 6.32% 10.45% 0.38% 6.27% 0.13% 1.15% 7.68% 0.00 56.08 0.00 548.67 135.96 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization Overutilization * * * 0.00% 3.02% 0.00% 0.11% 15.79% 0.38% 6.27% 0.13% 1.15% 7.68% 0.00 48.07 0.00 9.53 205.51 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * 0.03% 4.66% 0.00% 6.69% 12.52% 0.38% 6.27% 0.13% 1.15% 7.68% 7.70 74.25 0.22 580.60 163.03 * * Underutilization * Underutilization * Underutilization * Overutilization Overutilization 1 The percentage of subcontract dollars is taken from the subcontract utilization exhibit previously shown. Although calculations are based on estimates of nonminority subcontractor utilization, the disparity results would still hold for all ethnic groups if subcontractor was only 20% of the total project, instead of 24.8%, which is the average for the state of South Carolina construction projects. 2 The percentage of available subcontractors is taken from the availability exhibit previously shown. These percentages were calculated using U.S. Census Bureau data. 3 The disparity index is the ratio of % utilization to % availability times 100. An asterisk is used to indicate a substantial level of disparity – index below 80.00. The t-test results shown in Exhibit 5-3 for the construction business category indicate that the findings of underutilization of Nonminority women-owned firms and the MGT of America, Inc. Page 5-5 Disparity Analysis overutilization of nonminority-owned firms were statistically significant based on number of firms utilized and the availability of firms. The t values for the other business owner categories indicate that factors beyond normal occurrence must be considered as reasons for the respective underutilization and overutilization. The t-test results for construction subcontractors are shown in Exhibit 5-4. The number of firms utilized was based on the actual number of subcontractors reported from ADOT’s data files. However, this t-test shows that the utilization of M/W/DBE firms was statistically significant. EXHIBIT 5-3 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION T-TEST RESULTS FOR PRIME CONTRACTORS Business Owner Contract T-Value for % of Available T-Value for 1 2 Dollars Firms Classification Contract Dollars Available Firms African Americans 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 Hispanic Americans 0.00% 0.00 1.52% 0.00 Asian Americans 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 Native Americans 0.00% 0.00 0.51% 0.00 Nonminority Women 1.28% -9.01 * 6.57% -6.60 * Nonminority Firms 98.72% 12.46 * 91.41% 9.13 * 1 Percentage of related prime contractors utilized within the relevant market area. 2 Percentage of available firms in the relevant market area. * Statistically significant at the 0.05 level. EXHIBIT 5-4 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION T-TEST RESULTS FOR SUBCONTRACTORS Business Owner Subcontract Dollars1 T Value for % of Available Firms2 T Value for Classification Subcontract Dollars Available Firms African Americans 0.03% -5.19 * 0.38% -2.32 Hispanic Americans 4.66% 18.07 * 6.27% 8.10 Asian Americans 0.00% -24.64 * 0.13% -11.04 Native Americans 6.69% 34.07 * 1.15% 15.27 Nonminority Women 12.52% 48.27 * 7.68% 21.63 1 Percentage of related subcontractors utilized within the relevant market area. 2 Percentage of available firms in the relevant market area. * Statistically significant at the 0.05 level. 5.2.2 * * * * * Architecture and Engineering In this section, we present the results of the disparity analysis and t-tests for the architecture and engineering business category for prime consultants. Architecture and Engineering Consultants In Exhibit 5-5, we show the disparity indices for architecture and engineering consultants. Overall, all M/W/DBE firms were substantially underutilized as architecture and engineering consultants during the study period except for Asian Americans. The MGT of America, Inc. Page 5-6 Disparity Analysis corresponding t-tests for the architecture and engineering contracts, shown in Exhibit 5-6, indicate that the respective findings shown in the disparity chart were at a substantial level for Nonminority Women and Nonminority firms. Exhibit 5-7, shows the architecture and engineering subconsultants disparity analysis. Overall, African American and Nonmiority Women-owned firms were significantly underutilized, while Hispanic American, Asian American, and Native American firms were overutilized during the study period. The architecture and engineering subconsultants t-test shown in Exhibit 5-8, indicates statistically significant levels for Hispanic American, Asian American, and Native American firms. MGT of America, Inc. Page 5-7 Disparity Analysis EXHIBIT 5-5 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATION JULY 1, 2002, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2005 Business Owner Classification 2002 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 2003 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 2004 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms % of Contract % of Available Dollars1 Firms2 Disparity Index3 Disparate Impact of Utilization 0.00% 1.64% 8.45% 0.22% 0.16% 89.53% 1.46% 5.34% 6.55% 1.46% 9.22% 75.97% 0.00 30.79 128.97 0.00 1.73 117.84 Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * 0.45% 0.81% 7.82% 0.00% 0.16% 90.76% 1.46% 5.34% 6.55% 1.46% 9.22% 75.97% 31.08 15.26 119.28 0.00 1.70 119.47 Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * 0.00% 11.07% 2.76% 0.59% 1.47% 84.11% 1.46% 5.34% 6.55% 1.46% 9.22% 75.97% 0.00 207.29 42.11 0.00 15.89 110.72 Underutilization Overutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * 2005 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 0.00% 2.62% 8.27% 1.61% 0.28% 87.22% 1.46% 5.34% 6.55% 1.46% 9.22% 75.97% 0.00 49.11 126.20 0.00 3.02 114.81 Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * 2006 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 0.00% 5.92% 17.44% 0.00% 0.13% 76.52% 1.46% 5.34% 6.55% 1.46% 9.22% 75.97% 0.00 110.80 266.07 0.00 1.42 100.72 Underutilization * Overutilization Overutilization Underutilization * Underutilization * Overutilization 2007 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 0.00% 1.04% 16.87% 0.00% 0.00% 82.09% 1.46% 5.34% 6.55% 1.46% 9.22% 75.97% 0.00 19.46 257.39 0.00 0.00 108.06 Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * 0.10% 2.97% 10.41% 0.38% 0.29% 85.85% 1.46% 5.34% 6.55% 1.46% 9.22% 75.97% 6.65 55.71 158.86 0.00 3.12 113.00 Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * All Years African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * The percentage of dollars is taken from the prime utilization exhibit previously shown. 2 The percentage of available consultants is taken from the availability exhibit previously shown. 3 The disparity index is the ratio of % utilization to % availability times 100. * An asterisk is used to indicate a substantial level of disparity (index below 80.00). MGT of America, Inc. Page 5-8 Disparity Analysis EXHIBIT 5-6 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING T-TEST RESULTS FOR PRIME CONSULTANTS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Business Owner Contract T-Value for % of Available T-Value for Dollars1 Firms2 Classification Contract Dollars Available Firms African Americans 0.10% 0.00 1.46% 0.00 Hispanic Americans 2.97% 0.00 5.34% 0.00 Asian Americans 10.41% 0.00 6.55% 0.00 Native Americans 0.38% 0.00 1.46% 0.00 Nonminority Women 0.29% -35.67 * 9.22% -33.87 * Nonminority Firms 85.85% 6.06 * 75.97% 5.75 * 1 Percentage of related prime consultants utilized within the relevant market area. 2 Percentage of available firms in the relevant market area. * Statistically significant at the 0.05 level. EXHIBIT 5-7 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING SUBCONSULTANTS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATION JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Business Owner Classification 2002 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women 2003 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women 2004 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women 2005 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women 2006 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women 2007 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women All Fiscal Years African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women % of Subcontract Dollars1 % of Available Firms2 Disparity Index3 Disparate Impact of Utilization 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.53% 6.47% 6.64% 1.53% 10.90% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization * * * * * 0.00% 27.82% 0.00% 14.33% 0.00% 1.53% 6.47% 6.64% 1.53% 10.90% 0.00 429.76 0.00 934.57 0.00 Underutilization Overutilization Underutilization Overutilization Underutilization * 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.53% 6.47% 6.64% 1.53% 10.90% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization * * * * * 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.53% 6.47% 6.64% 1.53% 10.90% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization * * * * * 0.00% 9.71% 25.90% 4.36% 0.00% 1.53% 6.47% 6.64% 1.53% 10.90% 0.00 150.03 389.85 284.55 0.00 Underutilization Overutilization Overutilization Overutilization Underutilization * 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.03% 1.53% 6.47% 6.64% 1.53% 10.90% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.68 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization * * * * * 0.00% 13.48% 21.20% 6.80% 2.96% 1.53% 6.47% 6.64% 1.53% 10.90% 0.00 208.22 319.06 443.34 27.11 * * * Underutilization * Overutilization Overutilization Overutilization Underutilization * 1 The percentage of dollars is taken from the subconsultant utilization exhibit previously shown. 2 The percentage of available consultants is taken from the availability exhibit previously shown. 3 The disparity index is the ratio of % utilization to % availability times 100. * An asterisk is used to indicate a substantial level of disparity (index below 80.00). MGT of America, Inc. Page 5-9 Disparity Analysis EXHIBIT 5-8 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING T-TEST RESULTS FOR SUBCONSULTANTS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Business Owner Subcontract T Value for % of Available Dollars1 Firms2 Classification Subcontract Dollars African Americans 0.00% 0.00 1.53% Hispanic Americans 13.48% -2.04 * 6.47% Asian Americans 21.20% -1.48 6.64% Native Americans 6.80% -0.51 1.53% Nonminority Women 2.96% 0.00 10.90% 1 Percentage of related subconsultants utilized within the relevant market area. 2 Percentage of available firms in the relevant market area. * Statistically significant at the 0.05 level. 5.2.3 T Value for Available Firms 0.00 -11.98 -8.69 -3.00 0.00 * * * Professional Services In this section, we present the results of the disparity analysis and t-tests for the professional services business category for prime consultants. Professional Services Consultants In Exhibit 5-9, we show the disparity indices for professional services consultants. Overall, Hispanic American-owned and Nonminority firms were overutilized as professional services consultants during the study period. Hispanic American-owned firms were overutilized in the years of 2002, 2003, and 2005. However, nonminority firms were overutilized in all years. The corresponding t-tests for the professional services contracts, shown in Exhibit 5-10, indicate that the respective findings shown in the disparity chart were statistically significant for Nonminority women-owned and Nonminority firms. MGT of America, Inc. Page 5-10 Disparity Analysis EXHIBIT 5-9 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONSULTANTS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATION JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Business Owner % of Contract Dollars1 % of Available Firms2 Disparity Index3 0.00% 8.02% 0.19% 0.00% 0.25% 91.54% 1.90% 2.22% 1.27% 0.63% 7.30% 86.67% 0.00 360.95 0.00 0.00 3.39 105.62 Underutilization Overutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * 0.00% 4.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 95.33% 1.90% 2.22% 1.27% 0.63% 7.30% 86.67% 0.00 209.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 110.00 Underutilization Overutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.16% 89.84% 1.90% 2.22% 1.27% 0.63% 7.30% 86.67% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 139.21 103.66 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization Overutilization * * * * 2005 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 1.28% 11.96% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 86.76% 1.90% 2.22% 1.27% 0.63% 7.30% 86.67% 67.36 538.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.10 Underutilization Overutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * 2006 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.47% 93.53% 1.90% 2.22% 1.27% 0.63% 7.30% 86.67% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 88.58 107.92 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * 2007 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1.90% 2.22% 1.27% 0.63% 7.30% 86.67% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 115.38 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * * 0.07% 4.10% 0.07% 0.00% 3.37% 92.38% 1.90% 2.22% 1.27% 0.63% 7.30% 86.67% 3.88 184.47 0.00 0.00 46.16 106.60 Underutilization Overutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * Classification 2002 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 2003 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 2004 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms All Years African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 1 Disparate Impact of Utilization * * * * * * * * * * * * The percentage of dollars is taken from the prime utilization exhibit previously shown. 2 The percentage of available consultants is taken from the availability exhibit previously shown. 3 The disparity index is the ratio of % utilization to % availability times 100. * An asterisk is used to indicate a substantial level of disparity (index below 80.00). MGT of America, Inc. Page 5-11 Disparity Analysis EXHIBIT 5-10 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES T-TEST RESULTS FOR PRIME CONSULTANTS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Business Owner Contract T-Value for % of Available T-Value for Dollars1 Firms2 Classification Contract Dollars Available Firms African Americans 0.07% 0.00 1.90% 0.00 Hispanic Americans 4.10% 0.00 2.22% 0.00 Asian Americans 0.07% 0.00 1.27% 0.00 Native Americans 0.00% 0.00 0.63% 0.00 Nonminority Women 3.37% -2.76 * 7.30% -3.87 * Nonminority Firms 92.38% 2.73 * 86.67% 3.82 * 1 Percentage of related prime consultants utilized within the relevant market area. 2 Percentage of available firms in the relevant market area. * Statistically significant at the 0.05 level. 5.2.4 Other Services In Exhibit 5-11, our analysis shows that Nonminority firms were overutilized in each year of the study period, resulting in overall overutilization. Nonminority Women were overutilized in 2005, but were underutilized overall. The t values in Exhibit 5-14 indicate that the overall findings were statistically significant for Nonminority and Nonminority Women-owned firms and not the result of chance occurrences. MGT of America, Inc. Page 5-12 Disparity Analysis EXHIBIT 5-11 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF OTHER SERVICES VENDORS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATION JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Business Owner % of Contract Dollars1 % of Available Firms2 Disparity Index3 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1.90% 3.79% 0.95% 0.47% 8.06% 84.83% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 117.88 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * * 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.73% 98.27% 1.90% 3.79% 0.95% 0.47% 8.06% 84.83% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.47 115.84 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * * 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.50% 97.50% 1.90% 3.79% 0.95% 0.47% 8.06% 84.83% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.07 114.93 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * * 2005 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 0.00% 1.84% 0.00% 0.00% 17.84% 80.32% 1.90% 3.79% 0.95% 0.47% 8.06% 84.83% 0.00 48.55 0.00 0.00 221.43 94.68 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization Underutilization * * * * 2006 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1.90% 3.79% 0.95% 0.47% 8.06% 84.83% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 117.88 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * * 2007 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1.90% 3.79% 0.95% 0.47% 8.06% 84.83% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 117.88 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * * 0.00% 0.14% 0.00% 0.00% 2.67% 97.20% 1.90% 3.79% 0.95% 0.47% 8.06% 84.83% 0.00 3.57 0.00 0.00 33.09 114.57 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * * Classification 2002 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 2003 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 2004 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms All Years African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 1 Disparate Impact of Utilization The percentage of dollars is taken from the utilization exhibit previously shown. The percentage of available vendors is taken from the availability exhibit previously shown. 3 The disparity index is the ratio of % utilization to % availability times 100. * An asterisk is used to indicate a substantial level of disparity (index below 80.00). 2 MGT of America, Inc. Page 5-13 Disparity Analysis EXHIBIT 5-12 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OTHER SERVICES T-TEST RESULTS FOR OTHER SERVICES FIRMS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Business Owner Contract T-Value for % of Available T-Value for Dollars1 Firms2 Classification Contract Dollars Available Firms African Americans 0.00% 0.00 1.90% 0.00 Hispanic Americans 0.14% 0.00 3.79% 0.00 Asian Americans 0.00% 0.00 0.95% 0.00 Native Americans 0.00% 0.00 0.47% 0.00 Nonminority Women 2.67% -3.40 * 8.06% -4.86 * Nonminority Firms 97.20% 7.60 * 84.83% 10.88 * 1 Percentage of related payments made to firms within the relevant market area. 2 Percentage of available firms in the relevant market area. * Statistically significant at the 0.05 level. 5.2.5 Goods and Supplies As goods and supplies vendors, nonminority women were overutilized in 2002 of the study period, but were underutilized overall. These results produced findings of overall overutilization during the study period for nonminorities as goods and supplies vendors. (See Exhibit 5-15.) Exhibit 5-14 shows the t-test results for goods and supplies vendors, which indicates that the findings for utilized Nonminority firms was statistically significant. 5.2.6 Conclusions based on Disparity Indices This chapter used disparity indices to compare the availability and utilization findings from Chapter 4.0. The disparity indices for each of the business categories indicate whether disparity exists for each ethnic or gender group, and the ensuing t-test depicts the statistical significance of these disparity results. Exhibit 5-15 summarizes the findings of M/W/DBE underutilization. MGT of America, Inc. Page 5-14 Disparity Analysis EXHIBIT 5-13 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISPARITY ANALYSIS OF GOODS AND SUPPLIES VENDORS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATION JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Business Owner Classification 2002 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 2003 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 2004 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms % of Contract % of Available Dollars1 Firms2 Disparity Disparate Impact Index3 of Utilization 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.74% 95.26% 0.37% 2.60% 0.37% 1.12% 2.60% 92.94% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 182.05 102.50 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization Overutilization * * * * 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.37% 2.60% 0.37% 1.12% 2.60% 92.94% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 107.60 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * * 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.37% 2.60% 0.37% 1.12% 2.60% 92.94% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 107.60 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * * 2005 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.37% 2.60% 0.37% 1.12% 2.60% 92.94% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 107.60 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * * 2006 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.91% 98.09% 0.37% 2.60% 0.37% 1.12% 2.60% 92.94% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.28 105.55 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * * 2007 African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.37% 2.60% 0.37% 1.12% 2.60% 92.94% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 107.60 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * * 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.96% 98.04% 0.37% 2.60% 0.37% 1.12% 2.60% 92.94% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.43 105.49 Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Underutilization Overutilization * * * * * All Years African Americans Hispanic Americans Asian Americans Native Americans Nonminority Women Nonminority Firms 1 The percentage of dollars is taken from the utilization exhibit previously shown. 2 The percentage of available vendors is taken from the availability exhibit previously shown. 3 The disparity index is the ratio of % utilization to % availability times 100. * An asterisk is used to indicate a substantial level of disparity (index below 80.00). MGT of America, Inc. Page 5-15 Disparity Analysis EXHIBIT 5-14 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GOODS AND SUPPLIES T-TEST RESULTS FOR MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES FIRMS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Business Owner Contract T-Value for % of Available T-Value for Dollars1 Firms2 Classification Contract Dollars Available Firms African Americans 0.00% 0.00 0.37% 0.00 Hispanic Americans 0.00% 0.00 2.60% 0.00 Asian Americans 0.00% 0.00 0.37% 0.00 Native Americans 0.00% 0.00 1.12% 0.00 Nonminority Women 1.96% -0.65 2.60% -0.76 Nonminority Firms 98.04% 5.23 * 92.94% 6.03 * 1 Percentage of related prime contract dollars awarded to firms within the relevant market area. 2 Percentage of available firms in the relevant market area. * Statistically significant at the 0.05 level. EXHIBIT 5-15 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY OF M/W/DBE UNDERUTILIZATION JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Business Category Construction Primes Construction Subcontractors Architecture and Engineering Consultants Architecture and Engineering Subconsultants Professional Services Other Services Goods and Supplies MGT of America, Inc. African Hispanic Asian Native American American American American Nonminority Women Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Page 5-16 6.0 STATISTICAL DISPARITY IN SMALL BUSINESS CREDIT MARKETS 6.0 STATISTICAL DISPARITY IN SMALL BUSINESS CREDIT MARKETS 6.1 Introduction This chapter provides evidence on statistical disparities in the market for small business credit using data from the National Survey of Small Business Finance (NSSBF). The chapter begins with a brief legal discussion of the case law on the use of credit discrimination in the factual predicate for an M/WBE program. The next section provides an overview of the economic literature on discrimination in small business lending. The last section presents the results of the statistical analysis of disparities in loan denials and interest rates by race and gender in the NSSBF data. This chapter is organized into the following sections: 6.2 Lending Discrimination and the Factual Predicate for M/WBE Programs 6.3 Review of the Economic Literature 6.4 Statistical Analysis 6.2 Lending Discrimination and the Factual Predicate for M/WBE Programs There is case law supporting the contention that lending discrimination can serve as part of the factual predicate for a remedial procurement program. Although there has been no discussion of lending discrimination and compelling interest test in the Ninth Circuit, the issue has arisen in other circuits. In Adarand v. Slater the 10th Circuit took "judicial notice of the obvious causal connection between access to capital and ability to implement public works construction projects.‖1 The Tenth Circuit went on to state, "Lending discrimination alone of course does not justify action in the construction market. However, the persistence of such discrimination . . . supports the assertion that the formation, as well as utilization, of minority-owned construction enterprises has been impeded."2 The Tenth Circuit further stated that, ―evidence of discriminatory barriers to the formation of businesses by minorities and women and fair competition between M/WBEs and majority-owned construction firms shows a ‗strong link‘ between a government's ‗disbursements of public funds for construction contracts and the channeling of those funds due to private discrimination.‘"3 The district court in Concrete Works v. Denver IV cited this language from Adarand v. Slater in using the lending discrimination evidence to support the factual predicate for the Denver M/WBE program.4 Similarly, in the Seventh Circuit the district court in Northern Contracting v. Illinois noted: IDOT also presented evidence that discrimination in the bonding, insurance, and financing markets erected barriers to DBE formation and prosperity. Such discrimination inhibits the ability of DBEs to bid on prime contracts, thus allowing the discrimination to indirectly seep in to 1 th Adarand v. Slater, 228 F.3d 1147, 1170 (10 Cir 2000). Id. 3 Adarand v. Slater, 228 F.3d 1147, 1167-68. 4 th Concrete Works v. City and County of Denver, 321 F.3 950 (10 Cir 2003). 2 MGT of America, Inc. Page 6-1 Statistical Disparity in Small Business Credit Markets the award of prime contracts, which are otherwise awarded on a raceand gender-neutral basis. This indirect discrimination is sufficient to establish a compelling governmental interest in a DBE program.5 Evidence from NSSBF was entered into evidence in the Builders Association and Concrete Works cases. The statistical analysis of NSSBF data was criticized in both cases by the plaintiff‘s expert for incorrect specifications and covering too broad a region. However, in Builders Association after weighing the criticism by the plaintiff‘s expert the district court concluded: Out of the welter of statistics and other information, a strong basis in evidence emerged that African-American construction firms in the Chicago area are victims of discrimination in the credit market, that Asian and Hispanic firms probably encounter some discrimination in that market, and that women may possibly encounter some discrimination there.6 The district court in Builders Association did find a factual predicate for remedial procurement program in lending disparities and other evidence, but the court ruled that the Chicago M/WBE program was not narrowly tailored and had to be revised. Courts have also permitted anecdotal data on loan denials to supplement the econometric research in this area of lending discrimination. In reviewing a small survey of loans in the Denver area by the Denver Community Reinvestment Alliance, Colorado Capital Initiatives, and the City, the Tenth Circuit concluded that ―this very study, among other evidence, strongly support[ed] an initial showing of discrimination in lending."7 The City also introduced anecdotal evidence of lending discrimination in the Denver construction industry.8 Similarly, the district court in Builders Association v. Chicago noted, ―[The court has] not mentioned before evidence of perceptions of minorities and women of discrimination in lending, African-Americans particularly, because perceptions can be faulty. But here the perceptions have a basis in reality.‖9 6.3 Review of the Economic Literature Evidence from national databases and surveys does exist on disparity and discrimination in small business lending. The academic literature is not as extensive as the evidence on home mortgage lending.10 Most of the research has relied on surveys, data from the Characteristics of Business Owners (CBO), NSSBF, and Community Reinvestment Act 5 Northern Contracting v. Illinois, Mo 00 C 4515 (ND Il 2005), at 47. See also Builders Association of Greater Chicago v. City of Chicago, 298 F.Supp.2d 725 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (―A higher interest rate may make it impossible to submit the lowest bid in this highly competitive industry, or, indeed, to survive‖). The issue of th credit market barriers was not addressed on appeal to the 7 Circuit in the Northern Contracting case. th Northern Contracting v. Illinois DOT, Case No. 05-3981 (7 Cir 2007). No evidence of credit market barriers was before the Ninth Circuit in Western States Paving v. Washington DOT , 407 F. 3d 983 (9th Cir. 2005). 6 Id. 7 Adarand v. Slater, 228 F.3d 1147, 1170. 8 See Concrete Works III, 86 F.Supp.2d at 1072-73. 9 Builders Association, 298 F.Supp.2d 725 (N.D. Ill. 2003). 10 See, e.g., Alicia Munnell et al., ―Mortgage Lending in Boston: Interpreting the HMDA Data,‖ 86 American Economic Review 25 (1996). MGT of America, Inc. Page 6-2 Statistical Disparity in Small Business Credit Markets (CRA) data. Highlights of this literature are summarized below. Most of the papers have relied on the 1993 and 1998 NSSBF data. There has been little analysis of the 2003 NSSBF data thus far.11 6.3.1 Survey Evidence There have been national and local surveys supporting the findings of discrimination in lending. As noted above, the Tenth Circuit took judicial notice of the Denver study of lending discrimination. The Denver survey found that, controlling for sales, age of business, and net worth, denial rates were three times higher for African American firms than for nonminority firms.12 The survey was, however, of a small sample. A 1988 survey by Faith Ando found that 61.7 percent of African American commercial loan applications were accepted versus 89.9 percent of applications from nonminorities.13 A U.S. Department of Commerce 1983 survey of 1,300 firms found that, after controlling for education, debt ratio, industry, experience, and credit rating for businesses with sales in excess of $500,000, African American businesses had a 17 percent lower success rate of obtaining loans than nonminorities did.14 6.3.2 Characteristics of Business Owners (CBO) Database In a series of studies using CBO data, Timothy Bates studied disparities in loans received by African American firms. In a 1991 study using 1982 CBO data, Bates found that nonminority firms received larger loans on average than African American firms after controlling for firm characteristics.15 In a 1992 study Grown and Bates has also found lower rates of loans going to construction firms in the CBO data.16 Consistent with the statement of the district court in Adarand cited above, Bates found that firms that start with more capital tend to be more viable and have higher survival rates. Controlling for access to bank lending, but ignoring firm location, survival rates for African American start-ups matched white start-ups. 17 In a 1997 study using the 1987 CBO data, Bates found that banks lend more per dollar of equity to nonminority-owned firms than to similarly situated African American-owned firms.18 6.3.3 National Survey of Small Business Finance Loan Denials The most detailed discussion of discrimination involving small business lending has used the NSSBF. Using the 1988-89 NSSBF, Cavalluzo and Cavalluzo found that African 11 One paper using the 2003 NSSBF data is Blaise Roncagli and Chenchu Bathala, ―Determinants of the Use of Trade Credit Discounts by Small Firms,‖ paper submitted to Financial Management Association conference, January 2007. See in particular their adjustments of the survey data based on the sample design on pp. 11-14. However, this paper did not address discrimination in lending. 12 Colorado Center for Community Development, ―Survey of Small Business Lending in Denver‖ (1996). 13 Faith Ando, ―Capital Issues and the Minority-Owned Business,‖ 16 Review of Black Political Economy 77 (Spring 1988). 14 U.S. Department of Commerce, ―The State of Small Business‖ (1986), at 237-38. 15 T. Bates, Commercial Bank Financing of White and Black-Owned Small Business Start-Ups,‖ 31 Quarterly Review of Economics and Business 65 (Spring 1991). 16 C. Grown and T. Bates, ―Commercial Bank Lending Practices and the Development of Black-Owned Construction,‖ Journal of Urban Affairs (1992). 17 T. Bates, ―Commercial Bank Financing of White- and Black-Owned Small Business Startups‖ . 18 T. Bates, ―Unequal Access: Financial Institution Lending to Black and White-Owned Small Business StartUps,‖ 19 Journal of Urban Affairs 487 (November 1997). MGT of America, Inc. Page 6-3 Statistical Disparity in Small Business Credit Markets American males were 13 percent less likely to secure loans than nonminority males. 19 Denial rates for African American-owned firms were 35 percent higher than for firms owned by nonminorities, controlling for risk characteristics. However, the sample of minority firms in the 1988-89 NSSBF was small. In a paper using the 1993 NSSBF data, Blanchflower, Levin, and Zimmerman found that African Americans were more likely to say that credit was a serious problem (31 percent) than nonminorities (13 percent) and African American firms were less likely to apply for a loan because they thought they would be denied.20 Controlling for creditworthiness, African American firms were 28 percent more likely to have a loan denied than nonminority firms. The gap between African American and nonminority denial rates for small business loans was three and one half times greater than the gap in home mortgage loans. Controlling for credit, firm size, age, organizational type, education of owner, existence of line of credit, location, and industry still resulted in a 25 percent point difference in loan denial rate. Blanchflower et al. concluded that the ―results suggest that even African American owned firms with clean credit histories are at a significant disadvantage in getting their loans approved, holding constant other characteristics.‖ Blanchflower et al. did find there was smaller difference in loan denial rates between races for trade credit (from suppliers and credit card companies). These results were robust across several different econometric specifications. In a published paper using the 1993 and 1998 NSSBF data, Blanchflower, Levine, and Zimmerman found raw loan denial rates of 27 percent for firms owned by nonminorities and 66 percent for firms owned by African Americans. They also found that African American-owned businesses were about twice as likely to be denied loans after controlling for creditworthiness and other factors.21 The 1998 NSSBF includes Dunn and Bradstreet credit ratings as well as housing and nonhousing personal net worth data— both pieces of data that were not available in the 1989 and 1993 NSSBF. Cavalluzzo and Wolken found substantial unexplained differences in loan denial rates between minority and white-owned firms after controlling for credit characteristics and personal wealth variables.22 While greater personal wealth was associated with a lower probability of loan denial, large differences in denial rates across demographic groups remained after controlling for personal wealth. They also found that that African American denial rates was positively associated with lender market concentration. Loan Applications There are mixed results on applicant behavior. Coleman found that African American and Hispanic-owned firms were significantly more likely to avoid applying for loans because they believed they would be denied.23 Cohn and Coleman, relying on the 1993 19 K. Cavalluzo and L. Cavalluzo, ―Market Structure and Discrimination: The Case of Small Business,‖ 30 Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 771 (November 1998). 20 D. Blanchflower, P Levine and D. Zimmerman, ―Discrimination in the Small Business Credit Market‖ National Bureau of Economic Research working paper 6840 (1998). 21 D. Blanchflower, P. Levine, and D. Zimmerman, ―Discrimination in the Small-Business Credit Market,‖ Review of Economics and Statistics (November 2003): 930-943. 22 Ken Cavalluzzo and John Wolken, ―Small Business Loan Turndowns, Personal Wealth, and Discrimination‖ The Journal of Business, volume 78 (2005), pages 2153–2178. 23 S. Coleman, "The Borrowing Experience of Black and Hispanic-Owned Small Firms: Evidence from the 1998 Survey of Small Business Finances." 8 The Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal 1 (2002). MGT of America, Inc. Page 6-4 Statistical Disparity in Small Business Credit Markets NSSBF found that African American-owned firms were no less likely than white-owned firms to apply for a loan.24 In their study of 1993 and 1998 NSSBF data, Blanchflower, Levine, and Zimmerman found African American-owned firms were less likely to apply for credit than firms owned by nonminorities.25 Mitchell and Pearce estimated a model of model denials jointly with a model of loan applications.26 They separated out banks from non banks (finance companies, government agencies, factoring companies and also separated out relationship loans (line of credit loans from transaction loan that require collateral and have less soft information they found that Hispanics and African Americans were less preferred borrowers for all outstanding loans and all transaction loans. They did not find this to be the case for female or Asian owned firms. They found loan denial probabilities significantly higher for African American owners than otherwise identified white males. Mitchell and Pearce found minorities were more likely to have transaction loans from nonbanks and less likely to have bank loans of any kind. They found greater loan denial probabilities for African Americans and Hispanics for transaction loans from banks and non banks They state that ―while virtually all past research has likewise found evidence consistent with discriminatory lending practices against African American and Hispanic firms, our contribution is to hint that discrimination may be specific to particular segments of the loan market rather than general problem,‖27 they did not find evidence that lenders require less preferred borrowers to exhibit superior owner or firm characteristics. Theoretically transaction loans should be more objective than relationship loans. Interest Rates In a 2003 paper Blanchflower et al. found differences in the interest rate charged to African American borrowers. Controlling for creditworthiness, African American borrowers were charged an average of one percentage point higher interest. Even African American firms with good credit were charged higher interest rates.28 Patterns of Financing The SBA‘s Office of Advocacy studied patterns of lending in the 1998 NSSBF. The SBA found that M/WBEs were also found to have a different pattern of financing as compared with all small business in general. The SBA could not determine whether or not the different sources of financing was due to the reduced availability of certain types of credit to M/WBEs.29 24 R. Cohn and S. Coleman, "Borrowing Behavior of Small Black-Owned Firms," 6 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship 68 (2001). 25 D. Blanchflower, P. Levine, and D. Zimmerman, ―Discrimination in the Small-Business Credit Market,‖ Review of Economics and Statistics 930 (November 2003). 26 K. Mitchell and D. Pearce, ―The Availability of Financing to Small Firms Using the Survey of Small Business Finances,‖ Report for the Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration (May 2005). 27 K. Mitchell and D. Pearce (2005), at 46. 28 D. Blanchflower et al (November 2003). 29 Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration, "Financing Patterns of Small Firms: Findings from the 1998 Survey of Small Business Finance." Office of Advocacy. Washington, D.C., 2003. MGT of America, Inc. Page 6-5 Statistical Disparity in Small Business Credit Markets Regional Analysis Regional analysis from the NSSBF has been conducted for other local agencies using a methodology similar to Cavalluzo and Blanchflower et al. A study of the NSSBF data for the NSSBF South Atlantic region, which includes the Virginia/District of Columbia/ Maryland area, found that even after controlling for creditworthiness, African American firms were 28 percent more likely than nonminority-owned firms to have their loan request denied.30 The study found that African Americans were more likely to use credit cards, but the differences was not statistically significant and there were no racial differences in credit card balances. The study also found that African American-owned firms with good credit history were charged a percentage point more in interest rates on small business loans. The study also found that African American and Hispanic American firms were much more likely to have a loan application denied in a survey of minority business loan applicants in the State of Maryland. The 2007 disparity study conducted for the California Department of Transportation found that the national results held for the Pacific division once regional interaction terms were added to the analysis.31 6.3.4 Community Reinvestment Act Data There have been similar findings in local case studies of lending discrimination relying on CRA and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data. There have been other studies of disparities in small business lending by race of neighborhood. The Greater Philadelphia Capital Access Report found that only 1 percent of small business loan dollars went to neighborhoods that were 80 percent African American.32 Race remained a significant variable after controlling for other neighborhood characteristics, including income and industry mix. Daniel Immergluck has conducted a series of studies of small business lending by race of neighborhood using CRA data. In a study of the Chicago metropolitan area, Immergluck found that minority areas receive fewer small business loans after controlling for firm density, firm size, and industrial mix.33 Immergluck used similar data on 1998 small business lending patterns in the Philadelphia area and found that after controlling for income, firm and residential population, industry, firm size, and credit history, African American tracts received far fewer loans than nonminority tracts.34 Going from an all-nonminority neighborhood to an otherwise equivalent, adjacent all-African American tract resulted in an estimated decline of 6.8 loans. Similarly, Canner also found that minority tracts, after controlling for income, firm and residential population, industry, and regional location, receive fewer small business loans than nonminority tracts.35 30 NERA, ―Utilization of Minority Business Enterprises by the State of Maryland‖ (2001), chapter 4. BBC, DBE Program Availability and Disparity Study Report, 2007, Appendix H. 32 E. Quigley, Greater Philadelphia Capital Access Report, Policy Paper No. 2000-01 (January 2000). 33 D. Immergluck, ―Intrametropolitan Patterns of Small Business Lending: What Do the New CRA Data Reveal?‖ 34 Urban Affairs Review 787 (1999). See also D. Immergluck, ―How Changes In Small Business Lending Affect Firms In Low- And Moderate-Income Neighborhoods,‖ Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship (Aug 2003). 34 D. Immergluck, ―Redlining Redux: Black Neighborhoods, Black-owned Firms, and the Regulatory Cold Shoulder,‖ 38 Urban Affairs Review 22 (2002). 35 G. Canner, ―Evaluation of CRA Data on Small Business Lending. Business Access to Capital and Credit,‖ Federal Reserve System Research Conference Proceeding (March 1999), at 53-84. 31 MGT of America, Inc. Page 6-6 Statistical Disparity in Small Business Credit Markets Bostic and Lampani added economic characteristics of a firm owners locale and geographic information, such as race of the neighborhood, to the NSSBF data and also found that neighborhood race can affect small business loan denial rates and that African Americans still faced significant disparities.36 In their study, the disparity in denial rates in nonminority and minority neighborhoods actually increased after the neighborhood income was included in their statistical analysis. 6.4 Statistical Analysis 6.4.1 Selected Means by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender Characteristics of Loan Applicants For the national data, Exhibit 6-1 indicates that African American-owned small businesses were much more likely on average to be denied credit than Hispanic-owned businesses and that female-owned businesses were also more likely to be denied credit than White/male-owned businesses — 78.5 percent versus 18.7 percent in the first case, and 28.6 percent versus 18.7 percent in the latter. The composition of the type of loans applied for by African American firms were very different. African American businesses were much likely to apply for new lines of credit (LOC) when compared to White/maleowned businesses, but Asian-owned business were much more likely to apply for a new line of credit – 3.5 percent for African American-owned businesses and 42.4 percent for Asian-owned businesses compared to 25.4 percent for White/male-owned businesses. Importantly, African American-owned businesses were less likely to apply for businessrelated mortgages than White/male-owned businesses, and Asian-owned businesses were a little more likely to apply. The typical size of the loan applied for and denied to African American and Hispanic owned businesses were smaller than for White/male businesses. 6.4.2 Credit History of Firms/Owners Regarding credit history, the frequency of owner and business related judgments, obligations, and bankruptcies were on average higher for African American owned business when compared with White/male-owned and Asian-owned businesses. In the case Asian-owned businesses, owners with judgments against them were estimated to be only 1.7 percent, whereas, in the case of White/male-owned businesses, owners with judgments against them were estimated at 2.1 percent. For African American-owned businesses, they were estimated at 7.4 percent. The estimated percent of firms with delinquent obligations was 15.7 percent, 15.8 percent, 18.5 percent and 20.0 percent for White/male, Hispanic, and African American businesses respectively. The percent of African American businesses with owners with personal obligations is also estimated to be on average higher for White/male-owned businesses — 38.4 percent versus 10.8 percent and 20.0 percent for White male and Hispanic owned businesses respectively. 36 R. Bostic and P. Lampani, ―Race, Geography, Risk and Market Structure: Examining Discrimination in Small Business Finance,‖ Business Access to Capital and Credit, Federal Reserve System Research Conference Proceeding 149 (March 1999). MGT of America, Inc. Page 6-7 Statistical Disparity in Small Business Credit Markets 6.4.3 Other Firm Characteristics Asian-owned businesses were on average substantially larger than White/male-owned businesses, whereas, female-owned businesses were typically much smaller than White/male-owned firms. Average dollar sales for White/male -owned firms were more than double on average than African American-owned firms and female-owned firms but less than the average sales of those for Asian-owned firms. However, African Americanowned businesses were estimated to be more profitable than any ethnic/gender group in the sample. Female-owned and African American-owned businesses were estimated to have fewer employees than White/male firms and Asian-owned businesses. Owners of Asian-owned firms and White Males were more likely to have a college or post-graduate degree than owners of African American and Hispanic-owned businesses. Owners of African American-owned and Hispanic-owned firms tended to be have fewer years of experience. MGT of America, Inc. Page 6-8 Statistical Disparity in Small Business Credit Markets EXHIBIT 6-1 SELECTED SAMPLE MEANS OF LOAN APPLICANTS NATIONAL SURVEY OF SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE 2003 White White All White Male Female % Of Firms Denied in the Last Three Years 22.3 19.0 18.7 19.5 Interest rate on approved loans (%) 6.47 6.31 6.25 6.45 Sample Size 1,085 951 719 234 CREDIT HISTORY OF FIRMS/OWNERS % Owners with Judgments Against Them 2.2 1.9 2.1 1.6 % Firms with Judgments Against Them 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 % Firms Delinquent Business Obligations 15.7 15.5 15.8 14.9 % Owners Delinquent on Personal Obligations 12.1 10.8 10.8 10.8 % Owners Declared Bankruptcy in Past 7yrs. 2.4 2.2 1.8 2.8 % Firms Declared Bankruptcy in Past 7yrs. 0.9 0.9 0.7 1.4 Sample Size 4,240 3,711 2,613 1,102 OTHER FIRM CHARATERISTICS % Female-Owned 35.1 34.9 0.0 100 % Black-Owned 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 % Hispanic-Owned 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 % Asian-Owned 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sales (in 1,000s of 2003 $) 1,072 1,061 1,342 537 Profits (in 1,000s of 2003 $) 176 178 220 98 Assets (in 1,000s of 2003 $) 553 557 691 307 Liabilities (in 1,000s of 2003 $) 315 322 404 168 Owner‘s Years of Experience 19 20 21 17 Owner‘s Share of Business (percent) 82 81 85 75 1 Less Than High School 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.4 High School Degree 19.2 19.9 20.4 18.8 Some College but No Degree 16.2 15.8 14.1 18.9 Associates Degree Occupational/Academic 9.1 9.1 8.1 11.1 Trade School Vocational Program 6.9 7.3 5.8 9.9 College Degree 26.2 26.5 28.6 22.5 Post Graduate Degree 20.3 20.0 21.4 17.2 Sole Proprietorship 44.5 44.4 42.5 47.9 Partnership 8.7 8.8 7.7 10.8 S Corporation 31.0 31.9 32.9 30.0 C Corporation 15.7 15.0 17.0 11.2 Total Number of Workers 8.58 8.52 9.68 6.35 MGT of America, Inc. Black 78.5 11.1 36 Latin 28.6 8.07 38 Asian 31.5 5.76 38 Female 24.4 6.44 275 7.4 3.6 20.0 38.4 8.2 2.2 125 4.1 0.7 18.5 20.0 2.9 0.0 170 1.7 0.9 1.0 5.2 1.0 0.3 172 2.0 2.6 15.6 13.1 3.3 1.4 1,260 43.4 100 3.9 0.0 517 271 207 76 15 85 2.9 21.4 21.7 9.8 3.6 23.9 16.6 59.2 13.2 11.3 16.3 5.54 37.6 3.2 100 1.5 773 132 337 183 16 81 4.9 18.2 23.7 9.2 8.0 19.1 16.9 46.0 8.4 28.6 17.0 7.80 33.3 0.0 1.6 100 1,612 192 524 320 17 80 1.7 8.8 9.6 8.0 0.1 34.3 36.9 32.3 6.6 35.7 25.4 8.83 100 4.9 5.1 4.3 530 98 301 160 17 75 1.8 18.1 18.9 11.6 9.1 22.7 17.7 47.8 10.8 29.2 12.2 6.29 Page 6-9 Statistical Disparity in Small Business Credit Markets EXHIBIT 6-1 (Continued) SELECTED SAMPLE MEANS OF LOAN APPLICANTS NATIONAL SURVEY OF SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE 2003 White White All White Male Female Firm Age, in Years 14.3 14.8 15.5 13.4 % New Firms (less than 5 yrs old) 20.6 18.6 17.5 20.5 % Firms Located in MSA 79.4 77.6 78.6 75.9 Sample Size 4,240 3,711 2,613 1,102 CHARACTERISTICS OF LOAN APPLICATION MRL Amount Applied (in 1,000s of 2003 $) 226 216 250 133 MRL Amount Denied (in 1,000s of 2003 $) 118 121 124 115 New Line of Credit 24.7 24.3 25.4 21.8 Capital Lease 2.0 2.3 2.4 1.9 Mortgage for Business Purpose 14.8 15.5 15.1 16.3 Vehicle Loan for Business Purpose 17.7 19.0 20.1 16.3 Equipment Loan 13.7 15.0 13.1 19.6 Other Loan 11.4 11.0 11.4 10.0 Sample Size 1,085 951 719 234 MGT of America, Inc. Black 11.7 32.3 93.7 125 Latin 11.2 39.2 90.3 170 Asian 10.8 26.6 89.3 172 Female 13.0 22.1 78.3 1,260 78 122 3.5 0.4 2.9 16.6 4.4 10.5 36 92 76 35.2 0.0 3.7 8.9 6.9 19.4 38 233 51 42.4 0.0 20.1 0.0 0.2 11.8 38 129 97 22.1 1.6 15.4 14.5 18.3 9.2 275 Page 6-10 Statistical Disparity in Small Business Credit Markets 6.4.4 Estimated Probit Model of Loan Denial Probability Because of the small number of observations in the Mountain Census Division the model was tested on national data. 37 Then divisional interaction terms were used to confirm that the results still held for the Mountain Division Census division. In the simple model, where only the demographic variable is specified, White, White/female and African American ownership are statistical significant at the 5 percentlevel of significance (Exhibit 6-3). Female (regardless of ethnicity or race), Asian and Hispanic ownership variables are statistically insignificant at that level. In the full model (Exhibit 6-2), the statistical relationship between the probability of denial and the demographic variable is not as strong. However, in the cases of White, White/female, and African American ownership, the demographic variables still remain statistically significant at the 5 percent-level of significance, with the others remaining statistically insignificant. Importantly, the only demographic variable with a statistically significant positive relationship with the probability of loan denial is African American ownership. 6.4.5 Estimated OLS Model of Interest Rates Charged Two models were estimated for interest rates charged on loans approved over the last three years. They are described as restrictive and full respectively. In the restrictive model, only demographic dummy variables were specified, and in the full model, other attributes and characteristics, along with the demographic variables, were specified. The same set of variables used in the probit model was specified in the OLS interestrate model, and are shown in Exhibit 6-4. With the exception of the African American-ownership variable, the demographic variable is statistically insignificant at the 5 percent level of significance (Exhibit 6-3). In the African American-ownership case, the variable is statistically significant and positive at this level in both the restricted and full models — indicating that on average African American-owned businesses that have had approved loans pay a higher interest rate after holding constant the variables listed in Exhibit 6-2. The estimated 95 percent confidence interval is 1.5 percent to 7.0 percent. The implication of this is that African American-owned businesses pay approximately 30 percent to 150 percent (average interest rate charged on approved loan is about 4.5 percent) more in interest than nonAfrican American-owned firms. 37 The Mountain Division is composed of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada. MGT of America, Inc. Page 6-11 Statistical Disparity in Small Business Credit Markets EXHIBIT 6-2 FULL-MODEL VARIABLES NATIONAL SURVEY OF SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE 2003 Variable cf_educ=6 cf_educ=7 u1=1 u2>1 u3=1 a0_DB_credrk=3 or 4 a0_DB_credrk<=2 Profit a0_urban=1 r12 s8 cf_fage b3=4, 6 or 8 mrl6=1 or mrl24=1 mrl6=2 or mrl24=2 mrl6=3 or mrl24=3 mrl6=5 or mrl24=5 MGT of America, Inc. Variable Definition Weighted education level of owners: college degree Weighted education level of owners: post graduate college degree Within the past three years the firm has declared bankruptcy Within the past three years the firm has had one or more delinquent obligations of 60 or more days. Within the past three years the firm has had judgments rendered against them. ―Average risk:‖ Dun and Bradstreet score of 26 to 75 (0 most risky) ―High risk:‖ Dun and Bradstreet score of 0 to 25 (0 most risky) Firm‘s income after all expenses and taxes ($1,000). Firm located in a metropolitan statistical area Total assets ($1,000) Total liabilities ($1,000) Age of the firm in years Firm is incorporated Most recent requested loan was for a new line of credit Most recent requested loan was for a capital lease Most recent requested loan was for a mortgage for business purposes Most recent requested loan was for equipment Page 6-12 Statistical Disparity in Small Business Credit Markets EXHIBIT 6-3 ESTIMATED PROBIT MODEL OF LOAN DENIAL PROBABILITY1 NATIONAL SURVEY OF SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE 2003 Demographic Group White Ownership Female Ownership White/Female Ownership African American Ownership Asian Ownership Restricted 2 Model -0.993 (-27.58) 0.097 (0.76) -0.973 (-4.60) 1.645 (17.50) 0.290 (0.99) 0.205 (0.78) Full 3 Model -0.794 (-4.36) -0.004 (-0.03) -0.833 (-3.76) 1.376 (4.25) 0.225 (0.86) 0.048 (0.17) Sample Size 1085 1085 1085 1085 1085 Hispanic Ownership 1085 t-statistics are given in the parenthesis. 2 In the restricted model, only the demographic variable is specified. 3 In the full model, the demographic variables and those listed in Exhibit 6-2 are specified. 1 EXHIBIT 6-4 ESTIMATED OLS REGRESSION LOAN INTEREST-RATE MODEL1 NATIONAL SURVEY OF SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE 2003 Demographic Group White Ownership Female Ownership White/Male Ownership White/Female Ownership African American Ownership Asian Ownership Restricted 2 Model -1.32 (-1.34) -0.05 (-0.13) -0.41 (-1.04) 0.06 (0.16) 4.73 (3.40) -0.73 (-0.88) 1.66 (1.63) Full 3 Model -1.18 (-1.38) -0.35 (-0.90) -0.12 (-0.34) -0.21 (-0.55) 4.28 (3.29) -0.60 (-0.71) 1.86 (1.83) Sample Size 963 963 963 963 963 963 Hispanic Ownership 963 t-statistics are given in the parenthesis. 2 In the restricted model, only the demographic variable is specified. 3 In the full model, the demographic variables and those listed in Exhibit 6-2 are specified. 1 MGT of America, Inc. Page 6-13 Statistical Disparity in Small Business Credit Markets 6.5 Conclusions There is a well-established economic literature on discrimination in small business lending. This research has been used as support for M/WBE programs in several circuit court cases. Data from the more recent 2003 National Survey of Small Business Finance indicates that African American firms continue to suffer from greater loan denials and are charged higher interest rates on business loans after controlling for firm size, creditworthiness, and other important factors in the lending decision. MGT of America, Inc. Page 6-14 7.0 PRIVATE SECTOR AND NON-GOAL ANALYSES 7.0 PRIVATE SECTOR AND NON-GOAL ANALYSES In Richmond v. Croson (Croson), the Court established that a “municipality has a compelling government interest in redressing not only discrimination committed by the municipality itself, but also discrimination committed by private parties within the municipality’s legislative jurisdiction, so long as the municipality in some way participated in the discrimination to be remedied by the program.”1 This argument was reinforced by the Court of Appeals decision in Adarand v. Slater (Adarand), concluding that there was a compelling interest for a government DBE program, based primarily on evidence of private sector discrimination.2 According to this argument, discriminatory practices found in the private sector marketplace may be indicative of government’s passive or, in some cases, active participation in local discrimination. To remedy such discrimination, Croson provided that government “can use its spending powers to remedy private discrimination, if it identifies that discrimination with the particularity required by the Fourteenth Amendment.”3 The purpose of the private sector analysis is to evaluate the presence or absence of discrimination in the private sector marketplace, and to determine if there is evidence to support anecdotal comments from Chapter 8.0 regarding difficulties minorities have in securing work on private sector projects. Passive discrimination was examined in a disparity analysis of the utilization of minority construction subcontractors by majority prime contractors on projects not funded by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) in the state of Arizona’s construction market. A comparison of public sector minority utilization with private sector utilization allows for an assessment of the extent to which majority prime contractors have tended to hire minority subcontractors only to satisfy public sector requirements. Thus, the following questions are addressed:  Are there disparities in the utilization of minorities as prime contractors for commercial, private sector construction projects relative to their availability in the relevant market area?  Are there disparities in the utilization of minorities as subcontractors for commercial, private sector construction projects relative to their availability in the relevant market area?  To what extent are minority subcontractors utilized for ADOT projects also utilized in private sector construction projects? These questions are answered in the following sections: 7.1 State Subcontractor Analysis 7.2 Program Suspension and Minority/Women Business Enterprise (M/WBE) Utilization on Federally Funded Projects 7.3 Non-Goal Analysis 1 Croson, 488 U.S. 46, 109 S.Ct. at 720-21, 744-45. th Adarand v. Slater, 228 F.3d 1147 (10 Cir. 2000). 3 See Richmond v. Croson, 488 U.S. 492 (1989). 2 MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-1 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis 7.1 7.4 Private Sector Utilization Analysis by Race/Gender/Ethnicity of Business Ownership for Construction Subcontractors 7.5 Regression Analysis of Survey Data 7.6 Private Sector Disparities in Construction and Professional Services 7.7 PUMS Analysis of Race/Gender/Ethnicity Effects on SelfEmployment Propensity and Earnings 7.8 Conclusions State Subcontractor Analysis In order to perform further comparison of subcontractor utilization, MGT analyzed the utilization of subcontractors on state funded contracts. The state funded subcontract information was provided and verified by the Construction Group Field Reports. If the data was not identified by ADOT as a state funded contract, it was not included in the analysis. As shown in Exhibit 7-1, of the $131.7 million awarded to subcontractors on state funded contracts, minorities received $22.1 million. Nonminority women-owned subcontractors received 7.9 percent of the 16.8 percent awarded to minorities, followed by Hispanic Americans receiving 4.9 percent. African Americans were not utilized as subcontractors on state-funded contracts. EXHIBIT 7-1 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATEWIDE UTILIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION SUBCONTRACTORS ON STATE-FUNDED CONTRACTS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal African Hispanic Asian Native Nonminority M/WBE Nonminority Year Americans Americans Americans Americans Women Subtotal Total $ % 1 $ % 1 % $ 1 % $ 1 $ % 1 $ % $ Total Dollars 2 Awarded % 1 $ 2002 $0.00 0.00% $496,956.88 1.54% $0.00 0.00% $3,069,161.00 9.48% $1,507,726.92 4.66% $5,073,844.80 15.68% $27,284,352.24 84.32% $32,358,197.04 2003 $0.00 0.00% $1,243,822.37 7.04% $0.00 0.00% $648,970.25 3.67% $1,584,241.31 8.97% $3,477,033.93 19.69% $14,182,945.77 80.31% $17,659,979.70 2004 $0.00 0.00% $842,901.90 6.77% $0.00 0.00% $1,381,955.86 11.10% $1,030,567.85 8.28% $3,255,425.61 26.16% $9,189,181.25 73.84% $12,444,606.86 2005 $0.00 0.00% $584,443.60 3.42% $0.00 0.00% $66,598.00 0.39% $3,328,299.09 19.49% $3,979,340.69 23.30% $13,098,071.36 76.70% $17,077,412.05 2006 $0.00 0.00% $877,041.80 7.53% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $894,688.45 7.68% $1,771,730.25 15.20% $9,881,277.79 84.80% $11,653,008.04 2007 $0.00 0.00% $1,735,295.16 7.25% $0.00 0.00% $117,899.50 0.49% $1,872,286.75 7.82% $3,725,481.41 15.57% $20,205,917.52 84.43% $23,931,398.93 Total $0.00 0.00% $5,780,461.71 5.02% $0.00 0.00% $5,284,584.61 4.59% $10,217,810.37 8.88% $21,282,856.69 18.49% $ 93,841,745.93 81.51% $115,124,602.62 Sources: Arizona Department of Transportation Construction Group Field Reports. 1 Percent of Total Dollars Awarded. 2 The Total Dollars Awarded is the actual amount given to prime contractors and subcontractors combined. In Exhibit 7-2 we also analyzed the distribution of minority- and women-owned business enterprise (M/WBE) subcontracts awarded and subcontractors that were actually utilized MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-2 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis by ADOT on state-funded projects, according to electronic data, by race, ethnicity, and gender. There were 2,051 subcontracts to 385 unique subcontractors on this subset of ADOT projects. Of the 2,051 subcontracts let, 504 were let to 67 unique M/WBE firms, 17.4 percent of the subcontractors receiving subcontracts on ADOT state-funded projects. EXHIBIT 7-2 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION UTILIZATION ANALYSIS OF SUBCONTRACTS NUMBER OF CONTRACTS AND UNIQUE CONTRACTORS FISCAL YEARS 2002-2007 Number of Contracts Let by Race/Ethnicity/Gender Classification Fiscal Year African Americans %1 # Hispanic Americans %1 # Asian Americans %1 # Native Americans %1 # Nonminority Women %1 # M/WBE Subtotal # % Nonminority Total %1 # Total Contracts Awarded # 2002 0 0.00% 29 10.18% 0 0.00% 1 0.35% 37 12.98% 67 23.51% 218 76.49% 285 2003 0 0.00% 69 14.68% 0 0.00% 2 0.43% 55 11.70% 126 26.81% 344 73.19% 470 2004 0 0.00% 31 11.40% 0 0.00% 4 1.47% 31 11.40% 66 24.26% 206 75.74% 272 2005 0 0.00% 30 6.83% 0 0.00% 3 0.68% 76 17.31% 109 24.83% 330 75.17% 439 2006 0 0.00% 31 10.26% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 42 13.91% 73 24.17% 229 75.83% 302 2007 Total Contracts 0 0.00% 19 6.71% 0 0.00% 1 0.35% 43 15.19% 63 22.26% 220 77.74% 283 0 0.00% 209 10.19% 0 0.00% 11 0.54% 284 13.85% 504 24.57% 1,547 75.43% 2,051 Number of Firms by Race/Ethnicity/Gender Classification Fiscal Year African Americans # %2 Hispanic Americans # %2 Asian Americans # %2 Native Americans # %2 Nonminority Women # %2 M/WBE Subtotal # %2 Nonminority Total # %2 Total Firms # 2002 0 0.00% 11 9.91% 0 0.00% 1 0.90% 13 11.71% 25 22.52% 86 77.48% 111 2003 0 0.00% 17 11.56% 0 0.00% 2 1.36% 16 10.88% 35 23.81% 112 76.19% 147 2004 0 0.00% 12 10.53% 0 0.00% 2 1.75% 14 12.28% 28 24.56% 86 75.44% 114 2005 0 0.00% 14 8.19% 0 0.00% 2 1.17% 22 12.87% 38 22.22% 133 77.78% 171 2006 0 0.00% 13 9.70% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 15 11.19% 28 20.90% 106 79.10% 134 2007 0 0.00% 5 4.24% 0 0.00% 1 0.85% 14 11.86% 20 16.95% 98 83.05% 118 0.00% 28 7.27% 0 0.00% 3 0.78% 36 67 17.40% 318 82.60% 385 Individual Firms Over Six Years 3 0 9.35% Sources: Arizona Department of Transportation’s Construction Group Field Reports. 1 Percent of Total Contracts. 2 Percent of Total Firms. 3 “Total Unique Firms” counts a firm only once for each year the firm receives work. Since a firm could be used in multiple years, the total unique firms for the entire study period may not equal the sum of all years. MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-3 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis 7.2 Program Suspension and M/WBE Utilization On Federally Funded Projects As noted in Chapter 3, ADOT suspended the use of race-conscious project goals in January 2006 following the Ninth Circuit decision in Western State Paving. M/WBE subcontractor spending in percentage terms did fall significantly in 2007, the first year of the suspension of Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) project goals. DBE construction subcontractor spending averaged $33.2 million, 24.9 percent of total spending with subcontractors on federally subsidized projects from 2002 through 2006. 4 In 2007, DBE subcontractors won $25.5 million in subcontracts, 18.9 percent of total spending with subcontractors on federally subsidized projects. The biggest drop came for Native American-owned firms that fell from an average of 8.8 percent to about 0.1 percent in 2007. 7.3 Non-Goal Analysis For further comparison, MGT performed a non-goal analysis. This analysis shows the statewide utilization of subcontractors on ADOT federally funded contracts that did not have a minority goal assigned. Exhibit 7-3 indicates that $222.9 million were awarded to subcontractors on federal projects that did not have an assigned goal. Of the $222.9 million awarded, minorities received $60.5 million. Nonminority women-owned firms received the highest participation acquiring $34.2 million (15.3 percent) of the federal project dollars with no goals. Native American-owned firms followed receiving $16.1 million (7.2 percent). African Americans received the lowest minority participation, receiving $36,000 (.02 percent). The data for contracts with no goal was provided and verified by ADOT’s Construction Group Field Reports staff and electronic files. 4 Based on Exhibit 4-10 in Chapter 4.0. MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-4 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis EXHIBIT 7-3 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATEWIDE UTILIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION SUBCONTRACTORS ON FEDERAL PROJECTS WITH NO MINORITY GOALS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET AREA BY RACE/ETHNICITY/GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Fiscal African Hispanic Asian Native Nonminority M/WBE Nonminority Year Americans Americans Americans Americans Women Subtotal Total % 1 1 2 Awarded $ % $330,813.60 4.02% $0.00 0.00% $320,863.52 3.90% $1,519,775.00 18.45% $2,171,452.12 26.37% $6,064,443.58 73.63% $8,235,895.70 2003 $36,000.00 0.22% $507,526.17 3.13% $0.00 0.00% $324,649.39 2.00% $2,278,328.01 14.04% $3,146,503.57 19.39% $13,082,827.95 80.61% $16,229,331.52 2004 $0.00 0.00% $459,084.70 6.42% $0.00 0.00% $722,982.00 10.10% $1,165,313.72 16.29% $2,347,380.42 32.81% $4,807,857.60 67.19% $7,155,238.02 2005 $0.00 0.00% $7,540,818.07 ##### $0.00 0.00% $8,694,785.11 20.36% $3,338,280.85 7.82% $19,573,884.03 45.83% $23,138,344.32 54.17% $42,712,228.35 2006 $0.00 0.00% $1,344,932.47 5.66% $0.00 0.00% $9,500.00 0.04% $4,232,972.48 17.83% $5,587,404.95 23.53% $18,154,918.37 76.47% $23,742,323.32 2007 $0.00 0.00% $3,210,382.07 3.49% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $13,363,098.35 14.54% $16,573,480.42 18.03% $75,360,679.32 81.97% $91,934,159.74 Total $36,000.00 0.02% $13,393,557.08 7.05% $0.00 0.00% $10,072,780.02 5.30% $25,897,768.41 13.63% $49,400,105.51 26.00% $ 140,609,071.14 74.00% $190,009,176.65 $ $ % % 1 0.00% $ % 1 $0.00 $ % 1 2002 $ % 1 Total Dollars $ Sources: Arizona Department of Transportation’s Construction Group Field Reports. 1 Percent of Total Dollars Awarded. 2 The Total Dollars Awarded is the actual amount given to prime contractors and subcontractors combined. In Exhibit 7-4, we also analyzed the distribution of M/WBE subcontracts awarded and subcontractors that were actually utilized by ADOT on projects without DBE goals, according to electronic data, by race, ethnicity, and gender. There were 1,002 subcontracts to 316 unique subcontractors on this subset of ADOT projects. Of the 1,002 subcontracts let, 279 were let to 63 unique M/WBE firms, 19.9 percent of the subcontractors receiving subcontracts on ADOT projects without DBE goals. MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-5 $ Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis EXHIBIT 7-4 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION UTILIZATION ANALYSIS OF SUBCONTRACTS FEDERAL NONGOAL NUMBER OF CONTRACTS AND UNIQUE CONTRACTORS FISCAL YEARS 2002-2007 Number of Contracts Let by Race/Ethnicity/Gender Classification Fiscal Year African Americans %1 # Hispanic Americans %1 # Asian Americans %1 # Native Americans %1 # Nonminority Women %1 # M/WBE Subtotal # % Nonminority Total %1 # Total Contracts Awarded # 2002 0 0.00% 14 10.53% 0 0.00% 2 1.50% 25 18.80% 41 30.83% 92 69.17% 133 2003 1 0.56% 17 9.55% 0 0.00% 1 0.56% 42 23.60% 61 34.27% 117 65.73% 178 2004 0 0.00% 20 16.39% 0 0.00% 1 0.82% 22 18.03% 43 35.25% 79 64.75% 122 2005 0 0.00% 18 9.84% 0 0.00% 1 0.55% 30 16.39% 49 26.78% 134 73.22% 183 2006 0 0.00% 11 6.67% 0 0.00% 1 0.61% 32 19.39% 44 26.67% 121 73.33% 165 2007 Total Contracts 0 0.00% 15 6.79% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 26 11.76% 41 18.55% 180 81.45% 221 1 0.10% 95 9.48% 0 0.00% 6 0.60% 177 17.66% 279 27.84% 723 72.16% 1,002 Number of Firms by Race/Ethnicity/Gender Classification Fiscal Year African Americans # %2 2002 0 0.00% 2003 1 0.89% 2004 0 2005 Hispanic Americans # %2 7 10.00% Asian Americans # %2 Native Americans # %2 Nonminority Women # %2 M/WBE Subtotal # %2 Nonminority Total # %2 Total Firms # 0 0.00% 1 1.43% 13 18.57% 21 30.00% 49 70.00% 70 9.82% 0 0.00% 1 0.89% 20 17.86% 33 29.46% 79 70.54% 112 0.00% 9 13.43% 0 0.00% 1 1.49% 15 22.39% 25 37.31% 42 62.69% 67 0 0.00% 14 11.86% 0 0.00% 1 0.85% 17 14.41% 32 27.12% 86 72.88% 118 2006 0 0.00% 5 4.95% 0 0.00% 1 0.99% 15 14.85% 21 20.79% 80 79.21% 101 2007 0 0.00% 9 6.87% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 17 12.98% 26 19.85% 105 80.15% 131 0.32% 25 7.91% 0 0.00% 4 1.27% 33 10.44% 63 19.94% 253 80.06% 316 11 Individual Firms Over Six Years 3 1 Sources: Arizona Department of Transportation’s Construction Group Field Reports.. 1 Percent of Total Contracts. 2 Percent of Total Firms. 3 “Total Unique Firms” counts a firm only once for each year the firm receives work. Since a firm could be used in multiple years, the total unique firms for the entire study period may not equal the sum of all years. MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-6 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis 7.4 Private Sector Utilization Analysis by Race/Gender/Ethnicity of Business Ownership for Construction Subcontractors There was evidence that disparity exists in the Phoenix metropolitan area in private sector commercial construction. A recent disparity study for the city of Phoenix compared M/WBE subcontractor utilization in the private sector with utilization on city of Phoenix projects.5 The public sector used many more M/WBEs, particularly in proportion to its spending, than did the private sector commercial construction market. The city used 235 M/WBE subcontractors on city construction projects, whereas the private sector used only 31 M/WBE subcontractors according to the analyzed data. Percentage M/WBE utilization was also three times higher than in the private sector.6 7.5 Regression Analysis of Survey Data This section reports findings from a telephone survey of a sample of 5247 firms representative of the state of Arizona vendors examined in the study to assess race, ethnicity, and gender effects on vendor revenue during the 2007 tax year. To determine these effects, MGT applied a multivariate regression model to survey findings. There are two key questions for consideration in this analysis. Do minority and womanowned firms tend to earn significantly less revenue than firms owned by nonminority males? If “yes,” are their lower revenues due to race or gender status or to other factors? Case law and social science research provide some guidance for addressing these questions. From research literature, we know that, in addition to race and gender, factors such as firm capacity, owner experience, and education bear a relation to a firm’s gross revenues. When multiple factors come into play, sometimes a multivariate statistical analysis can improve our understanding of more complex relationships among factors affecting company earnings. In this study we employ linear regression to analyze variables, including race and gender that can affect a firm’s success. 5 MGT, Disparity Study for the City of Phoenix (2005). MGT selected one source of data for its private sector analysis, which is data provided by Reed Construction Data Corporation (RCD). The value in examining RCD data, is to provide information on both general construction and construction-related professional service projects in a given market area at both the prime contractor and subcontractor level. MGT examined the RCD private sector data for the state of Arizona and concluded that the data contained only nine subcontracting bids. However, the contract associated with these nine bids was not awarded. Therefore, we were unable to draw a conclusion from the insufficient data. 7 In order to provide an accurate and complete regression analysis some responses had to be removed. For example, if a person surveyed did not answer the revenue or race question, this response was removed. This number reflects those changes. 6 MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-7 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis 7.5.1 An Overview of Multivariate Regression and Description of Analytical Model Multivariate regression was employed to examine the influence of selected company and business characteristics—especially owner race and gender—on 2007 gross revenues reported by 524 companies participating in a telephone survey administered from May 23 to June 27, 2008. For this analysis, gross revenue was the dependent variable, or the variable to be explained by the presence, absence, or strength of “selected characteristics” variables, known as “independent” or “explanatory” variables. Because disparity analysis is an established domain of research, the independent company characteristics variables selected for this study were taken from an extensive review of disparity study research literature. Most economic studies of discrimination are based on the seminal work of Nobel Prize recipient Gary Becker, “The Economics of Discrimination.”8 Becker was the first to define discrimination in financial and economic terms. Since Becker, labor economists and statistical researchers have adopted a standard in disparity study research of using company earnings, or revenue, as the dependent variable in race and gender discrimination analysis. Comparable worth studies have also proposed regression models using gross revenue as the dependent variable for policy analysis,9 and the U.S. Department of Commerce employs regression analysis (included in 48 CFR 19) to establish price evaluation adjustments for small disadvantaged businesses in federal procurement programs.10 7.5.2 The Regression Model Variables Timothy Bates11 used at least five general determinants, including firm capacity, managerial ability, manager/owner experience, and demographic characteristics such as race and gender, to explain statistical variations in firm gross revenues. These are elaborated below in terms of the dependent/independent variable relationship regression seeks to explain. For this analysis, the dependent variable (the variable to be explained by the independent variables in the model) was defined operationally as “firm 2007 gross revenues.” Ideally, this variable is measured as the exact dollar figure for gross revenues. However, years of experience in conducting information and opinion surveys with companies have shown that firms tend to be reluctant to release precise dollar figures, but more responsive when inquiries about earnings are presented as a dollar range. Accordingly, to encourage greater participation in this study’s telephone survey, nine company gross revenue categories were defined, ranging from Category 1, “Up to $50,000” to Category 9, “More than $10 million.” 8 Becker, Gary. 1971, second edition. “The Economics of Discrimination.” The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p. 167. 9 Gunderson, Morley. 1994. “Male-Female Wage Differentials and Policy Responses.” In “Equal Employment Opportunity: Labor Market Discrimination and Public Policy,” pp.207-227. 10 “Federal Acquisition Regulations for Small Disadvantaged Businesses; Notice and Rules.” June 30, 1998. Memorandum for Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Economic and Statistics Administration, Department of Commerce. 11 Bates, Timothy. “The Declining Status of Minorities in the New York City Construction Industry.” Reprinted from Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 12., No. 1, February 1998, pp. 88-100. MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-8 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis The independent (explanatory) variables were those characteristics hypothesized as contributing to the variation in the dependent variable (2007 gross revenues). For this study, independent variables included:  Number of full-time employees—The more employees a company has, the more likely it is that that company will generate higher revenues.  Owner’s years of experience—The longer a company owner has been in a particular business, the more likely it is that the owner has knowledge of how to acquire contracts, and has the skills and experience to succeed in that business.  Owner’s level of education—The research literature consistently reports a positive relationship between education and level of income.  Age of company—It is argued that a company’s longevity is an indicator of both success and an owner’s managerial ability.  Race/ethnic group/gender of firm owners—The proposition to be tested was whether there is a statistically significant relationship between race/ethnicity/ gender of minority firm owners and firm revenue. In the analysis, the category “Non-M/WBE” served as a reference group against which all other race and gender groups were compared. Finally, since companies tend to be organized around a business concentration (such as Professional Services, Goods and Supplies, and Other Services), type of business was introduced as a moderator variable to determine if the model, given adequate sample size, behaved differently as a predictor of gross revenue when respondents’ line of business was considered. Participants’ responses to the survey provided the data to examine the relative importance of these factors. The operational relationship between these constructs (such as firm capacity, capability, experience, race, and gender) and measures derived from survey items is presented in Exhibit 7-5. MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-9 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis EXHIBIT 7-5 MODEL CONSTRUCTS, VARIABLES, AND MEASURES Model Constructs Capacity Owner's Managerial Ability Demographics Variables Number of Employees Measures Number of full-time and part-time employees reported Private Contracting % total revenue from private sources Owner’s Education Level of education (from “some high school” to “postgraduate degree”) Owner’s Experience Years of experience Company Age 2003 minus reported “year of establishment” Business Owner Groups African American, Hispanic American, Asian American, Native American, Nonminority Woman, and Non-M/WBE Firms Sex of Company Owner Sex of company majority owner or shareholder Source: Telephone Survey Data methodology. 7.5.3 Exploring Variable Relationships: How Regression Analysis Works Multiple regression analysis permits simultaneous examination not only of the effects on the dependent variable of all independent variables in the multivariate model, but also the effect of each unique variable (such as controlling for the effects of the other independent variables in the equation). The effect of each predictor (independent) variable on the dependent variable is expressed as the magnitude of the change in the dependent variable (Y) for each unit change in the independent variable (X) plus an “error term.” Since the independent variable is never a perfect predictor of the dependent variable—that is, X is expressed as an imperfect predictor of Y such that one unit change in X never leads to one unit change in Y—the “error term,” , is postulated to acknowledge the residual change in the value of Y that X cannot explain. The goal in sound regression modeling, therefore, is to minimize residual values associated with the independent variables and to maximize their explanatory power. In other words, a good model that seeks to explain what causes revenue earnings, in this case, will hypothesize a combination of independent variables based on solid research findings having sufficient explanatory power to account for case-by-case differences in company revenue, while minimizing that portion of variation in revenue values that the independent variable cannot explain (such as minimizing the difference between Y values predicted by the X values in the model and actual Y values). MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-10 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis 7.5.4 Assessing Variables in the Model As suggested earlier, in a model with multiple independent, or explanatory variables, the effect of each individual independent variable is expressed as the expected change in the dependent variable (Y) for each unit change in the independent variable (X), or controlling for the values of all the other independent variables (such as the effect on Y of the other X values in the equation). When X and Y values are plotted on a graph, linear regression attempts to find a straight line of best fit (also known as the leastsquares line) that minimizes the differences between actual Y and predicted Y values as a function of X. The slope of this line represents the statistical relationship between the predicted values of Y based on X. The point at which this regression line crosses the Y axis (otherwise known as the constant) represents the predicted value of Y when X = 0. If the effect of X on Y is determined to be statistically significant (for example, a significance level of p < 0.05 asserts that the calculated relationship between X and Y could occur due to chance only 5 times in 100), it can be asserted that X may indeed play a role in determining the value of Y (in the case of this study, company revenues). For example, if the slope coefficient of the variable representing one of the specific racial groups is determined to be statistically significant, then, all other things being equal, the hypothesis that race of the owner of a firm affects the annual revenue of the firm has only a 5 percent chance of being false. In disparity research, theory asserts that the negative effect of race on revenue earnings associated with being a minority-owned business is likely a product of discrimination. 7.5.5 Multivariate Regression Model Mathematically, the multivariate linear regression model is expressed as: Y = 0 + I XI +  2 X2 + 3 X3 +  4 X4 +  5 X5 + ____+  Where: Y = annual firm gross revenues 0 = the constant, representing the value of Y when XI = 0 I = coefficient representing the magnitude of XI’s effect on Y XI = the independent variables, such as capacity, experience, managerial ability, race, and gender.  = the error term, representing the variance in Y unexplained by Xl This equation describes the hypothesized relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variables and was used to test the hypothesis that there is no difference in 2007 revenue earnings for M/WBE firms when compared with non-M/WBE firms. Traditionally, the hypothesis of no difference (known as the null hypothesis) is represented as: H0: Y1 = Y2 We can reject the null hypothesis if the analysis indicates that race and gender have been found to affect firm revenue (H1: Y1  Y2, the alternate hypothesis). Results are statistically significant if it is determined that the probability of achieving this difference due to chance was less than 5 in 100 (for instance, p < .05). MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-11 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis 7.5.6 Multivariate Regression Model Results The regression model tested the effects of selected demographic and business characteristic variables on revenue earnings elicited from firms participating in the study, according to the following categories:12 1 = Up to $50,000 4 = $300,001 to $500,000 7 = $3,000,001 to $5,000,000 2 = $50,001 to $100,000 5 = $500,001 to $1 million 8 = $5,000,001 to $10 million 3 = $100,001 to $300,000 6 = $1,000,001 to $3 million 9 = Over $10 million The tests for multicollinearity among independent variables and variance inflation due to outlier observations revealed no substantive problems with the data.13 Initial analyses also determined that one independent variable, percentage of business in the private sector, made no substantive contribution to the model, and was, therefore, removed. These adjustments yielded values for the variables listed in Exhibit 7-6. 12 Despite the ordinal nature of the dependent variable, findings are reported based on a linear regression analysis; specifically, Ordinary Least Squares (OLS). Menard (1995) notes this as an acceptable and common practice, “particularly when the dependent variable has five or more [ordered] categories. Since this [OLS] is probably the easiest approach for readers to understand, sometimes other approaches are tried, just to confirm that the use of OLS does not…distort the findings.” In this case, the nine categories of revenue were also analyzed using ordered Logit (SPSS 11.5), with nearly identical findings to those achieved with OLS with respect to magnitude of effect of the independent variables and both sign and significance. For further discussion, see Menard, S., “Applied logistic regression analysis,” (Sage university papers series. Quantitative applications in the social sciences; no. 07-106), Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1995. 13 Multicollinearity refers to excessive intercorrelation among the independent variables in a multiple regression model, which obscures the effect of each on the dependent variable to the extent that they behave as one variable and may measure two highly correlated components of the same theoretical factor. Outliers are observations in a data set that are substantially different from the bulk of the data, perhaps because of a data entry error or some other cause that would reasonable explain a data anomaly. MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-12 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis EXHIBIT 7-6 THE STATE OF ARIZONA TELEPHONE SURVEY DATA RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS Coefficients (Constant) African Americans (n=51) Hispanic Americans (n=106) Asian Americans (n=29) Native Americans (n=24) Nonminority Females (n=155) Company Age Number of Employees High School Some College College Degree Owner’s Years of Experience Special Trade Professional Services General/Personal Services Supplies and Equipment Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 5.322 0.537 -1.485 0.423 -0.923 0.349 -0.862 0.472 -0.826 0.522 -1.387 0.296 0.051 0.009 0.001 0.000 0.010 0.507 -0.214 0.326 -0.200 0.255 0.008 0.012 -0.027 0.420 -0.768 0.321 -0.897 0.412 -0.220 0.469 Standardized Coefficients Beta -0.197 -0.168 -0.093 -0.079 -0.282 0.301 0.154 0.001 -0.037 -0.043 0.031 -0.004 -0.168 -0.126 -0.026 Source: The state of Arizona telephone survey. Bold type indicates statistically significant results (p < .05). 7.5.7 Results  The model testing the effects of the variables listed in Exhibit 5-14 on revenue reported by companies participating in the telephone survey explained 19.0 percent of the variance of the revenue variable (R2j = 0.285, F = 9.056, df = 15,341, p  .0).  When controlling for the effects of variables related to company demographics (such as company capacity, ownership level of education and experience), M/WBE status had a negative effect on 2007 company earnings of all minority groups.  Among the company characteristics variables, other than M/WBE status, revenue for all groups increased as a function of owner’s experience and number of employees.  Industry type of firm ownership had no significant impact on company revenues, except in professional services and general/personal services. 7.5.8 Summary of Survey Findings With regard to the positive significant effects of the non-race/ethnicity/gender variables— company age and number of employees—it would be expected that a firm’s revenue might be positively related to its size and age, supporting the logical conclusion that MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-13 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis larger, more established firms tend to do more business. However, even when these impacts were considered, M/WBE firms responding to the telephone survey earned significantly less revenue in 2007 than did their non-M/WBE counterparts, supporting the conclusion that M/WBE status is negatively related to earnings when compared with earnings for non-M/WBEs. 7.6 Private Sector Disparities In Construction And Professional Services Based on the 2002 Survey of Business Owners (SBO) there remains a significant gap between the market share of M/WBEs and their share of the Arizona marketplace business population. 7.6.1 Construction As shown in Exhibit 7-7 there were 13,223 construction firms with paid employees in the Arizona marketplace in 2002, of which 8 percent were owned by minorities and 7.3 percent by women. Exhibit 7-7 also shows that:  African American-owned firms were 0.2 percent of firms, 0.1 percent of sales, with $964,654 in average revenue per firm, and 44.3 percent of the market place average.  Hispanic American-owned firms were 7 percent of firms, 2.5 percent of sales, with $767,579 in average revenue per firm, and 35.2 percent of the market place average.  Native American-owned firms were 0.8 percent of firms, 0.5 percent of sales, with $1.37 million in average revenue per firm, and 63.1 percent of the market place average.  Women-owned firms were 7.3 percent of firms, 4.3 percent of sales, $1.29 million in average revenue per firm, and 59.6 percent of the market place average.  There was no data in 2002 on construction firms for Asian American-owned firms. MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-14 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis EXHIBIT 7-7 CENSUS MEASURE OF AVAILABILITY AND UTILIZATION IN THE ARIZONA MARKETPLACE CONSTRUCTION FIRMS WITH PAID EMPLOYEES All Firms No. Firms African American 26 Hispanic American 928 Asian American N/A Native American 106 All Minorities 1,115 Women 963 All Firms 13,223 Percentage of Marketplace Firms African American 0.2% Hispanic American 7.0% Asian American N/A Native American 0.8% All Minorities 8.0% Women 7.3% Disparity Index (Ratio of Sale to Firms) African American Hispanic American Asian American Native American Women Sales $25,081,000 $712,313,000 N/A $145,777,000 N/A $1,250,746,000 $28,810,369,000 Sales 0.1% 2.5% N/A 0.5% N/A 4.3% Sales Per Firm $964,654 $767,579 N/A $1,375,255 N/A $1,298,802 $2,178,807 Sales Per Firm Compared to the Marketplace Average 44.3% 35.2% N/A 63.1% N/A 59.6% 44.3 35.2 N/A 63.1 59.6 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 2002, Survey of Business Owners, based on all firms specializing in construction. All groups exhibited substantial disparity in the marketplace where data was available. Disparity indices for the overall marketplace are presented at the bottom of Exhibit 7-7. MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-15 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis 7.6.2 Professional Services As shown in Exhibit 7-8 there were 13,240 professional service firms with paid employees in the Arizona marketplace in 2002, of which 5.8 percent were owned by minorities and 19.5 percent by women. Exhibit 7-8 also shows that:  African American-owned firms were 0.5 percent of firms, 0.2 percent of sales, with $403,556 in average revenue per firm, 44.5 percent of the marketplace average.  Hispanic American-owned firms were 3.0 percent of firms, 1.4 percent of sales, with $412,318 in average revenue per firm, 45.4 percent of the marketplace average.  Asian American-owned firms were 1.8 percent of firms, 1.0 percent of sales, with $532,238 in average revenue per firm, 58.7 percent of the marketplace average.  Native American-owned firms were 0.4 percent of firms, 0.1 percent of sales, with $289,729 in average revenue per firm, 31.9 percent of the marketplace average.  Women-owned firms were 19.5 percent of firms, 7.1 percent of sales, with $330,270 in average revenue per firm, 35.4 percent of the marketplace average. MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-16 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis EXHIBIT 7-8 CENSUS MEASURE OF AVAILABILITY AND UTILIZATION IN THE ARIZONA MARKETPLACE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRMS WITH PAID EMPLOYEES All Firms No Firms African American 72 Hispanic American 406 Asian American 235 Native American 59 All Minorities 772 Women 2,619 All Firms 13,240 Percentage of Marketplace African American Hispanic American Asian American Native American All Minorities Women Disparity Index African American Hispanic American Asian American Native American Women Firms 0.5% 3.0% 1.8% 0.4% 5.8% 19.5% Sales $29,056,000 $167,401,000 $125,076,000 $17,094,000 $338,627,000 $864,976,000 $12,174,615,000 Sales Per Firm $403,556 $412,318 $532,238 $289,729 $438,636 $330,270 $907,199 Sales 0.2% 1.4% 1.0% 0.1% 2.8% 7.1% Sales Per Firm Compared to the Marketplace Average 44.5% 45.4% 58.7% 31.9% 48.4% 36.4% 44.5 45.4 58.7 31.9 36.4 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 2002, Survey of Business Owners, based on all firms specializing in Professional Services. All groups exhibited substantial disparity in the marketplace. Disparity indices for the overall marketplace are presented at the bottom of Exhibit 7-8. 7.6.3 Conclusions for Census Disparities Firms owned by women and minorities were small portions of the marketplace in construction and professional services and generally earned substantially less revenue per firm, between 30 percent and 60 percent of the market place average. Disparities were evidenced for all groups and all categories. 7.7 PUMS Analysis of Race/Gender/Ethnicity Effects on Self-Employment Propensity and Earnings The purpose of this analysis was to examine the effects of race and gender, along with other individual economic and demographic characteristics, on individuals’ participation in the private sector as self-employed business operators, and on their earnings as a MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-17 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis result of their participation in five categories of private sector business activity in the state of Arizona. Findings for M/WBEs were compared to the self-employment participation and earnings record of nonminority male business owners to determine if a disparity in self-employment rates and earnings exists, and if it is attributable to differences in race, gender or ethnicity. Applying the methodology and variables employed by a city of Denver disparity study (see City of Denver v. Concrete Works), data for this investigation originated from the Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) data derived from the 2000 U.S. Census of Population and Housing (2000 U.S. Census), to which we apply appropriate regression statistics to draw conclusions. To guide this investigation, three general research questions were posed. Questions and variables used to respond to each, followed by a report of findings, are reported below: 1. Are racial, ethnic and gender minority groups less likely than nonminority males to be self-employed? This analysis examined the statistical effects of the following variables on the likelihood of being self-employed in the study market area: Race, ethnicity, and gender of business owner (African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, Native American, Nonminority women, Nonminority males), marital status, age, selfreported health-related disabilities, availability of capital (household property value, monthly total mortgage payments, unearned income) and other characteristics (number of individuals over the age of 65 living in household, number of children under the age of 18 living in household) and level of education. 2. Does race/gender/ethnicity status have an impact on individual’s self-employment earnings? This analysis examined the statistical effects of the following variables on income from self-employment for business owners in the market area: Race, ethnicity, and gender of business owner (African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, Native American, Nonminority women, Nonminority males), marital Status, age, selfreported health-related disabilities, and availability of capital (household property value, monthly total mortgage payments, unearned income), and level of education. 3. If M/WBE’S and nonminority males shared similar traits and marketplace conditions (for instance, similar “rewards” in terms of capital and asset accrual), what would be the effect on rates of self-employment by race, ethnicity and gender? Derived from a similar model employed by a city of Denver disparity study, MGT created a model that leveraged statistical findings in response to the first two questions to determine if race, gender and ethnicity effects derived from those findings would persist if nonminority male demographic and economic characteristics were combined with M/WBE self-employment data. More precisely, in contrast to Question 1, which permitted a comparison of self-employment rates based on demographic and economic characteristics reported by the 2000 U.S. Census for individual M/WBE categories and nonminority males, this analysis posed the question, “How would M/WBE rates change, if M/WBE’s operated in a nonminority MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-18 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis male business world and how much of this change is attributable to race, gender, or ethnicity?” Findings: 1. Are racial, ethnic and gender minority groups less likely than nonminority males to be self-employed?  In all industries in the state of Arizona nonminority males were roughly twice as likely to be self-employed as African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and nonminority women.14  In the state of Arizona, a nonminority male was nearly six times as likely as Native American to be self-employed in professional services.  In the state of Arizona, nonminority males were over twice as likely as African Americans to be self-employed in the goods and supplies services industry.  African Americans were less likely to be self-employed than were nonminority males in all industries. 2. Does race/gender/ethnicity status have an impact on individuals’ self-employment earnings?  In the state of Arizona, all minorities reported significantly lower earnings in all business type categories.  In the other services industry, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans reported significantly lower earnings than nonminority males in the state of Arizona: 28.7 percent, 41.0 percent, and 67.2 percent, respectively.  The most egregious affect on earnings elasticities can be found in other services for Native Americans. In other services, Native Americans earned 67.2 percent less than nonminority males. 3. If M/WBEs and nonminority males shared similar traits and marketplace conditions (such as similar “rewards” in terms of capital and asset accrual), what would be the effect on rates of self-employment by race, ethnicity and gender?  Overall, comparing self-employment nonminority males with self-employment for African Americans in the state of Arizona, over 70 percent of the disparity in self-employment rates was attributable to race differences. 14 These likelihood characteristics were derived from Exhibit 7-10 by calculating the inverse of the reported odds ratios. MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-19 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis  Overall, comparing self-employment nonminority males with self-employment Hispanic Americans in the state of Arizona, over 70 percent of the disparity in self-employment rates was attributable to race differences.  Comparing self-employment nonminority males with self-employment Native Americans in the state of Arizona construction industry, over 95 percent of the disparity in self-employment rates was attributable to race differences.  Comparing self-employment nonminority males with self-employment Hispanic Americans in the state of Arizona professional industry, over 79 percent of the disparity in self-employment rates was attributable to gender differences. 7.7.1 Self-Employment Analysis This report analyzes the availability of minority, nonminority women, and nonminority male firms in five categories of private sector business activity in the state of Arizona. The goal of this investigation is to examine the effects of race and gender, along with other individual economic and demographic characteristics, on individuals’ participation in the private sector as self-employed business operators, and on their earnings as a result of their participation. Ultimately, these findings will be compared to the selfemployment participation and earnings record of nonminority male business owners to determine if a disparity in self-employment rates and earnings exists, and if it is attributable to racial/gender discrimination in the marketplace. Data for this investigation are provided by the PUMS data derived from the 2000 U.S. Census, to which we apply appropriate regression statistics to draw conclusions. Exhibit 7-9 presents a general picture of self-employment rates by race, median earnings, and sample sizes (n’s) in the state of Arizona, calculated from the Five Percent PUMS census sample. The next section will discuss the research basis for this examination to lay the groundwork for a description of the models and methodologies to be employed. This will be followed by a presentation of findings regarding minority status effects on selfemployment rates, self-employment earnings, and attributions of these differences to discrimination. MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-20 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis EXHIBIT 7-9 PERCENTAGE SELF-EMPLOYED AND 1999 EARNINGS BY RACE/GENDER/ETHNICITY CATEGORY FOR STATE OF ARIZONA Race/Ethnic/Gender Category Percent of the Population Self-Employed 1999 Sample Census n 1999 Median Earnings State of Arizona State of Arizona State of Arizona $42,000.00 16.75% 4,072 $29,350.00 5.75% 104 $22,250.00 6.56% 848 $30,000.00 12.38% 159 $24,000.00 4.17% 101 $28,400.00 7.93% 1,587 $35,000.00 10.95% 6,871 Source: PUMS data from 2000 U.S. Census and MGT of America, Inc., calculations using SPSS. Nonminority Males African American Hispanic American Asian American Native American Nonminority Women 7.7.2 Self-Employment Rates and Self-Employment Earnings Analysis as an Analog of Business Formation and Maintenance Research in economics consistently supports the finding of group differences by race and gender in rates of business formation (see Journal of Econometrics, Vol., 61, Issue 1, devoted entirely to the econometrics of labor marked discrimination and segregation). For a disparity study, however, the fundamental question is, “How much of this difference is due to factors that would appear, at least superficially, to be related to group differences other than race, ethnicity, or gender, and how much can be attributed to discrimination effects related to one’s race/ethnic/gender affiliation?” It is known, for instance, that most minority groups have a lower median age than do non-Hispanic whites (2000 U.S. Census, PUMS).15 It is also known, in general, that the likelihood of being self-employed increases with age (PUMS, 2000). When social scientists speak of nonracial group differences, they are referring to such things as general differences in religious beliefs, for instance, as these might influence group attitudes toward contraception, and, in turn, both birthrates and median age. A disparity study, therefore, seeks to examine these other important demographic and economic variables in conjunction with race and ethnicity, as they influence group rates of business formation, to determine if we can assert that discrimination against minorities is sufficiently present to demand public sector legal remedies such as affirmative action and minority set-aside contracting. Questions about marketplace dynamics affecting self-employment—or, more specifically, the odds of being able to form one’s own business and then to excel (for instance, generate earnings growth)—are at the heart of disparity analysis research. Whereas, in general, early disparity studies focused on gross racial disparity, merely documenting these alone is insufficient for inferring discrimination effects, per se, without “partialling out” effects due to nondiscriminatory factors. Moreover, to the extent that discrimination exists, it is likely to inhibit both the formation of M/WBEs and the profits and growth of these. Consequently, earlier disparity study methodology and analysis has failed to account for the effects of discrimination on minority self-employment in at least two ways: (1) a failure to account adequately for the effects of discriminatory barriers 15 Hereafter referred to as PUMS, 2000. Concrete Works v. City and County of Denver, 321 F.3 950 (10 Cir. 2003). MGT of America, Inc. th Page 7-21 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis minorities face up front in attempting to form businesses; and (2) a failure to isolate and explain methodologically discrimination effects once minority businesses are formed. The next section addresses these shortcomings, utilizing 2000 PUMS data derived from the 2000 U.S. Census to answer research questions about the effects of discrimination on self-employment and self-employment earnings using multiple regression statistics. 7.7.3 Research Questions, Statistical Models, and Methods Two general research questions were posed in the initial analysis:  Are racial, ethnic, and gender minority groups less likely than nonminority males to be self-employed?  Does race/gender/ethnicity status have an impact on individuals’ earnings? A third question, to be addressed later—How much does race/ethnicity/gender discrimination influence the probability of being self-employed?—draws conclusions based on findings of questions one and two. To answer the first two questions, two multivariate regression techniques were employed, respectively: logistic regression and linear regression. To understand the appropriate application of these regression techniques, it is helpful to explore in greater detail the questions to be answered. The dependent variables in questions one and two—that is, the phenomenon to be explained by influences such as age, race, gender, and disability status, for example (the independent or “explanatory” variables)—are: the probability of self-employment status (a binary, categorical variable based on two possible values: 0 = not self-employed or 1 = self-employed); and 1999 earnings from self-employment (a continuous variable). In this analysis, the choice of regression approach is based on the scale of the dependent variable (in question one, a categorical scale with only two possible values; and in question two, a continuous scale with many possible values). Because binary logistic regression can perform an analysis in which the dependent variable is categorical, it was employed for the analysis of question one.16 To analyze question two, in which the dependent variable is continuous, a simple linear regression was used. 16 Logistical regression, or logit, models generate predicted probabilities that are almost identical to those calculated by a probit procedure, used in the Denver Concrete Works case. Logit, however, has the added advantage of dealing more effectively with observations at the extremes of a distribution. For a complete explanation, see Interpreting Probability Models (T.F. Liao, Text 101 in the Sage University series). MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-22 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis 7.7.4 Deriving the Logistic Regression Model from the Simple Linear Model The logistic regression model can be derived with reference to the simple linear regression model expressed mathematically as: Y= 0 +  I XI + 2 X2 + 3 X3 + 4 X4 + 5 X5 + ___+  Where: Y = a continuous variable (such as, 1999 earnings from selfemployment). 0 = the constant, representing the value of Y when XI = 0 I = coefficient representing the magnitude of XI’s effect on Y XI = the independent variables, such as age, human capital (such as, level of education), availability of capital, race/ethnicity/gender, etc.  = the error term, representing that variance in Y unexplained by Xi This equation may be summarized as: K E (Y )      k xk k 1 in which Y is the dependent variable and  represents the expected values of Y as a result of the effects of β, the explanatory variables. When a random distribution of Y using the linear model is studied, its expected values are specified as a linear combination of K unknown parameters and the covariates or explanatory variables. When this model is applied to data in the analysis, the statistical link between the dependent variable and the explanatory or independent variables is found. Suppose a new term, , is introduced into the linear model such that: K       k xk k 1 When the data are randomly distributed, the link between  and  is linear, and a simple linear regression can be used. However, to answer the first question, the categorical dependent variable was binomially distributed. Therefore, the link between  and  becomes   log[ /(1   )] and logistic regression is utilized to determine the relationship between the dependent variable and the explanatory variables, calculated as a probability value (e.g., the probability of being self-employed when one is African American). The logistic regression model is expressed mathematically as: log[  / 1(1   )]     i X n   MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-23 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis Where: (/1-) = the probability of being self-employed  = a constant value i = coefficient corresponding to independent variables X n = selected individual characteristic variables, such as age, marital status, education, race, and gender  = error term, representing the variance in Y unexplained by Xi This model can now be used to determine the relationship between a single categorical variable (0 = not self-employed/1 = self-employed) and a set of characteristics hypothesized to influence the probability of finding a 0 or 1 value for the categorical variable. The result of this analysis illustrates not only the extent to which a characteristic can increase or decrease the likelihood that the categorical variable will be a 0 or a 1, but also if the effect of the influencing characteristics is positive or negative in relation to being selfemployed. 7.7.5 Results of the Analyses 7.7.5.1 Question 1: Are Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Minority Groups Less Likely Than Nonminority Males to be Self-Employed? To derive a set of variables known to predict employment status (self-employed; not selfemployed), we used the PUMS 2000 Five Percent Sample data. Binary logistic regression was used to calculate the probability of being self-employed, the dependent variable, with respect to socioeconomic and demographic characteristics selected for their potential to influence the likelihood of self-employment. The sample for the analysis was limited to labor force participants according to the following criteria:  Resident of the state of Arizona.  Self-employed individuals in construction, professional services, other services, architecture and engineering,17 and goods and supplies.  Full-time employees (more than 35 hours a week).  18 years of age or older.  Individuals employed in the private sector. Next, we derived the following variables hypothesized as predictors of employment status (self-employed/not self-employed):  Race and Sex: African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, Native American, nonminority women, nonminority males.  Availability of Capital: Home ownership, Home value, Mortgage rate, Unearned income, Residual income. 17 Due to inadequate sample numbers for all races in the A&E PUMS 2000 data, A&E was merged with the Professional Services category. MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-24 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis  Marital Status.  Ability to speak English well.  Disability status: From individuals’ reports of health-related disabilities.  Age and Age2: Squaring the age variable acknowledges the positive, curvilinear relationship between each year of age and earnings.  Owner’s level of education.  Number of individuals living in a household over the age of 65.  Number of children who are living in a household under the age of 18. 7.7.5.2 Findings Binary logistic regression analysis provided estimates of the relationship between the independent variables described above and the probability of being self-employed in the four types of business industries. In Exhibit 7-10, odds ratios are presented by minority groups reporting the effect of race/ethnicity/gender on the odds of being self-employed in 1999, holding all other variables constant. Full regression results on all the variables are presented in Appendix A. EXHIBIT 7-10 SELF-EMPLOYMENT ODDS RATIOS OF MINORITY GROUPS RELATIVE TO NONMINORITY MALES AFTER CONTROLLING FOR SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Race/Ethnic Group State of Arizona African American Hispanic American Asian American Native American Nonminority Women All Professional Other Goods & Industries Construction Services Services Supplies 0.405 0.470 0.746 0.283 0.434 0.512 0.459 0.557 0.318 0.527 0.265 0.245 0.450 0.157 0.219 0.598 0.654 1.077 0.343 0.832 0.434 0.586 0.978 0.608 0.677 Source: PUMS data from 2000 U.S. Census and MGT of America, Inc., calculations using SPSS. Note: Bold indicates that the estimated “odds ratio” for the group was statistically significant. The A&E business industry was excluded from this analysis because of the lack of sufficient data. MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-25 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis The results indicate the following:  In all industries in the state of Arizona nonminority males were roughly twice as likely to be self-employed as African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and nonminority women.18  In the state of Arizona, a nonminority male was nearly six times as likely as Native American to be self-employed in professional services.  In the state of Arizona, nonminority males were over twice as likely as African Americans to be self-employed in the goods and supplies industry.  African Americans were less likely to be self-employed than were nonminority males in all industries. 7.7.5.3 Question 2: Does Race/Gender/Ethnicity Status Have an Impact on Individuals’ Earnings? To answer this question, we compared self-employed, minority and women entrepreneur earnings to earnings of nonminority males in the state of Arizona, when the effect of other demographic and economic characteristics was controlled for. That is, it is possible to examine the earnings of self-employed individuals who have similar education levels, are of similar age, and so on, to enable earnings comparisons by race/gender/ethnicity. To derive a set of variables known to predict earnings, the dependent variable, we used 1999 wages from employment for self-employed individuals, as reported in the PUMS 2000 Five Percent sample. These included:  Race and Sex: African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, Native American, nonminority women, nonminority males.  Availability of Capital: Homeownership, Home value, Mortgage rate, Unearned income, Residual income.  Marital Status.  Ability to speak English well.  Disability status: From individuals’ reports of health-related disabilities.  Age and Age2: Squaring the age variable acknowledges the positive, curvilinear relationship between each year of age and earnings.  Owner’s level of education. 18 These likelihood characteristics were derived from Exhibit 7-10 by calculating the inverse of the reported odds ratios. MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-26 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis 7.7.5.4 Findings Results of the linear regression model estimating the effects of selected demographic and economic variables on self-employment earnings are reported in Exhibit 7-11. Each number (coefficient) in the exhibit represents a percentage change in earnings. For example, the corresponding number for an African American in all industries is -.413, meaning that an African American will earn 41.3 percent less than a nonminority male when the statistical effects of the other variables in the equation are controlled for. Full regression results on all the variables are presented in Appendix A. EXHIBIT 7-11 EARNINGS ELASTICITIES OF MINORITY GROUPS RELATIVE TO NONMINORITY MALES AFTER CONTROLLING FOR SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS All Professional Other Goods & Industries Construction Services Services Supplies Race/Ethnic Group State of Arizona African American Hispanic American Asian American Native American Nonminority Women -0.413 -0.356 -0.250 -0.456 -0.358 -0.529 -0.161 -0.115 -0.165 -0.219 -0.564 -0.341 0.174 -0.312 -0.478 -0.287 -0.410 -0.353 -0.672 -0.298 -0.456 -0.413 -0.467 -0.439 -0.386 Source: PUMS data from 2000 U.S. Census and MGT of America, Inc., calculations using SPSS. Note: Bold indicates that the estimated elasticities for the group were statistically significant. The A&E business industry was excluded from this analysis because of the lack of sufficient data. The results indicate the following:  In the state of Arizona, all minorities reported significantly lower earnings in all business type categories.  In the other services industry, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans reported significantly lower earnings than nonminority males in the state of Arizona: 28.7 percent, 41 percent, and 67.2 percent, respectively.  The most egregious affect on earnings elasticities can be found in other services for Native Americans. In other services, Native Americans earned 67.2 percent less than nonminority males. 7.7.6 Disparities in Rates of Self-Employment: How Much Can Be Attributed to Discrimination? Results of the analyses of self-employment rates and 1999 self-employment earnings revealed general disparities between minority and nonminority self-employed individuals. Exhibit 7-12 presents the results of these analyses. Column A reports observed employment rates for each race/gender group, calculated directly from the PUMS 2000 data. To obtain values in columns B and C, we calculated two predicted self-employment rates using the following equation: K Pr ob( y  1)   (e  k xk / 1 e  k xk ) k 1 MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-27 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis Where: Pr ob( y  1) = represents the probability of being self-employed: k = coefficient corresponding to the independent variables used in xk the logistic regression analysis of self-employment probabilities = the mean values of these same variables The first of these predicted self-employment rate calculations (in column B) presents nonminority male self-employment rates as they would be if their characteristics (for instance, x k , or mean values for the independent variables) were applied to minority market structures (represented for each race by their  k or odds coefficient values). The second self-employment rate calculation (in column C) presents minority selfemployment rates as they would be if they were rewarded in a similar manner as nonminority males in the nonminority male market structure: that is, by multiplying the minority means (characteristics) by the estimated nonminority coefficients for both race and the other independent variables. MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-28 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analysis EXHIBIT 7-12 OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SELF-EMPLOYMENT RATES STATE OF ARIZONA Business/Race Group Nonminority Observed SelfCharacteristics and Own Employment Rates Market Structure (A) (B) Own Characteristics and Nonminority Market Structure Disparity Ratio (column A divided by Portion of Difference Due to column C) Discrimination (C) (D) (E) 1.000 0.4129 0.4662 0.6651 0.2699 0.4303 74.38% 73.80% n/d 89.65% n/d 1.000 0.4739 0.4337 0.8652 0.2875 0.5687 72.20% 69.78% n/d 95.93% n/d 1.000 0.2912 0.2181 0.2981 0.1326 0.2631 61.05% 79.88% n/d 82.84% n/d 1.0000 0.5703 0.6447 0.9058 0.3680 0.7492 72.24% 60.77% n/d 70.83% n/d 1.000 0.3935 0.5692 0.9712 0.4057 0.5478 67.02% 50.06% 24.63% 93.63% n/d Overall Nonminority Males 0.1675 0.1675 0.1675 African American 0.0575 0.0874 0.1393 Hispanic American 0.0656 0.1001 0.1408 Asian American 0.1238 0.1501 0.1862 Native American 0.0417 0.0627 0.1545 Nonminority Women 0.0793 0.0931 0.1842 Construction Nonminority Males 0.2342 0.2342 0.2342 African American 0.0923 0.1498 0.1948 Hispanic American 0.0816 0.1363 0.1881 Asian American 0.2414 0.1607 0.2790 Natvie American 0.0654 0.0987 0.2274 Nonminority Women 0.1561 0.1535 0.2744 Professional Services Nonminority Males 0.1784 0.1784 0.1784 African American 0.0358 0.0722 0.1229 Hispanic American 0.0325 0.0672 0.1491 Asian American 0.0800 0.1167 0.2684 Natvie American 0.0201 0.0441 0.1512 Nonminority Women 0.0470 0.0605 0.1785 Other Services Nonminority Males 0.1750 0.1750 0.1750 African American 0.0857 0.1294 0.1502 Hispanic American 0.0918 0.1397 0.1424 Asian American 0.1727 0.2110 0.1907 Natvie American 0.0511 0.0785 0.1389 Nonminority Women 0.1477 0.1714 0.1972 Goods & Supplies Nonminority Males 0.1026 0.1026 0.1026 African American 0.0311 0.0570 0.0790 Hispanic American 0.0408 0.0755 0.0717 Asian American 0.0915 0.1199 0.0943 Natvie American 0.0400 0.0781 0.0986 Nonminority Women 0.0665 0.0862 0.1214 Source: PUMS data from 2000 U.S. Census and MGT of America, Inc., calculations using SPSS and Excel. n/d: no discrimination was found. MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-29 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analyses Using these calculations, we were able to determine a percentage of the disparities in self-employment between minorities and nonminority males attributable to discrimination by dividing the observed self-employment rate for a particular minority group (column A) by the predicted self-employment rate as it would be if minority groups faced the same market structure as nonminority males (column C). Next, we calculated the difference between the predicted self-employment rate as it would be if minority groups faced the same market structure as nonminority males and the observed self-employment rate for that minority group, and divided this value by the difference between the observed selfemployment rate for nonminority males and the self-employment rate for a particular minority group. In the absence of discrimination this number is zero, which means disparities in self-employment rates between minority groups and nonminority males can be attributed to differences in group characteristics not associated with discrimination. On the other hand, as this value approaches 1.0, we are able to attribute disparities increasingly to discrimination in the marketplace. 7.7.7 Findings Examining the results reported in Exhibit 7-12, we found the following.  Overall, comparing self-employment for nonminority males with selfemployment for African Americans in the state of Arizona, over 70 percent of the disparity in self-employment rates was attributable to race differences.  Overall, comparing self-employment for nonminority males with selfemployment for Hispanic Americans in the state of Arizona, over 70 percent of the disparity in self-employment rates was attributable to race differences.  Comparing self-employment for nonminority males with self-employment for Native Americans in the state of Arizona construction industry, over 95 percent of the disparity in self-employment rates was attributable to race differences.  Comparing self-employment for nonminority males with self-employment for Hispanic Americans in the state of Arizona professional industry, over 79 percent of the disparity in self-employment rates was attributable to gender differences. 7.7.8 Summary of PUMS Findings In general, findings from the PUMS 2000 data indicate that minorities were significantly less likely than nonminority males to be self-employed and, if they were self-employed, they earned significantly less in 1999 than did self-employed nonminority males. When self-employment rates were stratified by race and by business type, trends varied within individual race-by-type cells, but disparities persisted for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and nonminority women. When group self-employment rates were submitted to MGT’s disparity-due-to-minority-status analysis, findings supported the conclusion that disparities for these three groups (of adequate sample size to permit interpretation) were likely the result of differences in the marketplace due to race, gender, and ethnicity. MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-30 Private Sector and Non-Goal Analyses 7.8 Conclusions This chapter provides considerable evidence of lingering barriers in the private sector marketplace from census and survey data, and some evidence for commercial construction in particular, faced by women and minority contractors. These barriers associated with race and gender persist even after controlling for various factors associate with business capacity. Additional econometric evidence of credit market barriers was presented in Chapter 6.0. There is further anecdotal testimony of difficulties faced by women and minority contractors in the private sector presented in Chapter 8.0. Nevertheless, while there was a substantial fall in M/WBE utilization following the termination of project specific M/WBE goals in 2006, there is also evidence in the chapter of the utilization of women and minority subcontractors in the absence of project specific goals. MGT of America, Inc. Page 7-31 8.0 ANECDOTAL ANALYSIS 8.0 ANECDOTAL ANALYSIS This chapter describes the results of the analysis of anecdotal information for the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Disparity Study. The collection and analysis of anecdotal data is performed to explain and interpret statistical findings. Courts have ruled that the combination of disparity findings and anecdotal evidence provides the best evidence demonstrating the existence of historical discriminatory practices, if any. Unlike other chapters in this report, anecdotal analysis does not rely solely on quantitative data. Anecdotal analysis also utilizes qualitative data to describe the context of the examined environment as well as the climate in which all businesses and other relevant entities applicable to the study operate. The following sections present the approach MGT of America, Inc. (MGT), used in the collection of anecdotal data, the methods employed in the collection of those data, and the quantitative and qualitative results of the data collected. This chapter is organized into the following sections: 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.1 Methodology Telephone Survey Demographics Procurement Process Financing Conducting Business with ADOT as a Subcontractor Subcontracting Experience Discrimination DBE Program Conclusions Methodology MGT‟s experience conducting disparity studies has shown that anecdotal data collected through multiple methods provide more comprehensive information than methodologies using a single-pronged approach. For this reason, MGT used the combination of a telephone survey, focus groups, and face-to-face interviews to collect anecdotal information and to identify issues that were common to businesses in the market area. MGT was also able to draw inferences from these data as to the prevalence of obstacles perceived as limiting the participation of minority-owned and woman-owned business enterprises (M/WBEs) in ADOT procurement transactions. Given the importance of anecdotal evidence by the courts, MGT approached the collection and analysis of anecdotal data with the same methodological rigor given to quantitative data analysis. The focus of the telephone survey, focus groups, and face-to-face interviews was to identify the respondents‟ experiences in conducting business with ADOT. MGT solicited participation and responses from businesses that have done, or attempted to do, business with ADOT between the years 2002 and 2007. With the telephone survey (Appendix D), MGT reached a broader segment of a population in a more cost-effective and time-efficient manner than possible through faceto-face interviews. However, the face-to-face interviews, which are structured settings MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-1 Anecdotal Analysis where an interviewer uses an interview guide (Appendix E) to solicit input from participants, provided more latitude for additional information gathering on issues that are unique to the respondents‟ experiences. 8.1.1 Personal Interviews Lines and Lights Technology of Tucson, Arizona, conducted in-person interviews with representatives of 50 firms during May and June, 2008, in support of the ADOT Disparity Study. These interviews were conducted at the firm‟s business location or, alternatively, at public locations specified by the firm‟s representative. Of the 50 interviews conducted, 30 were conducted in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area, 17 in the Tucson area, and three in Flagstaff. Interview times ranged from 30 minutes to two hours, with the majority averaging slightly over an hour in length. The interview instrument provided by MGT was used as the basis for the study. Questions covered areas including perceptions of ADOT‟s procurement practices, dissemination of information about bids and opportunities, perceptions of discrimination, and the value of certification as a DBE firm in the contracting process. Respondents were asked a series of questions, but not required to respond. Follow-up questions were asked in cases where the interview instrument suggested further clarification be obtained. The database provided by ADOT specified ownership of some firms by race, ethnicity, or gender; in the majority of cases, no ownership designation was provided. These businesses were assumed to be owned by non-minority males. Random selection from this category during the course of the study yielded firms whose ownership was minority or female in all cases but one, in which case, the ownership had recently changed to non-minority male-owned status from non-minority woman-owned status. Numerous attempts to include the broadest variety of ethnicities were made; in many cases, firms having ethnic designations that might increase the diversity of the dataset had not pursued ADOT business and declined to be interviewed for the study. The following ethnic breakdown in Exhibit 8-1 represents the 50 firms chosen for interview. EXHIBIT 8-1 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PERSONAL INTERVIEWS SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS African Asian Hispanic Native Nonminority Nonminority American American American American Women Men No. Interviewed 4* 3 13 7 22 1 Percent of Total 8 6 26 14 44 2 Source: Lines and Lights Technology. *In one case, the firm was half African-American and half Asian-American owned; it appears in this category because the African-American owner was interviewed. The 50 firms represented eleven engineering firms; and nine goods and supplies firms; and ten each in the categories of construction, professional services, and other services. The breakdown by ownership and type of firm appears in Exhibit 8-2. MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-2 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-2 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PERSONAL INTERVIEWS SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS BY INDUSTRY African Asian American American Construction 0 0 Arch./Engineering 3 2 Prof. Services 0 0 Other Services 1 1 Goods/Supplies 0 0 Total 4 3 Source: Lines and Lights Technology. 8.1.2 Hispanic American 6 2 1 4 0 13 Native American 2 1 2 0 2 7 Nonminority Women 1 3 7 4 7 22 Nonminority Men 1 0 0 0 0 1 Focus Groups Three focus groups with firm owners, representatives from prime contractors and contracting member organizations, and business service providers located in Flagstaff, Tucson, and Phoenix, Arizona, were conducted for the study. The participants were selected through telephone contacts, advertisements in local newspapers, and input from local agencies. Solicitation for participation was also made to business owners served by the providers. The focus groups were held in Flagstaff at Northern Arizona University in the High Country Conference Center on Tuesday, May 27, 2008, in Phoenix at the Desert Willow Conference Center on Monday, June 2, 2008, and in Tucson at the Inn Suites Tucson City Center on Wednesday, June 3, 2008. All focus groups were held from 5:30 until 8:30 pm Classique, LLC received 15 confirmations for Flagstaff and eight attended. Tucson had 14 confirmations with two attendees and one subsequent request from an RSVP to be interviewed. Phoenix had a total of 21 confirmations and nine attendees. Each individual was provided a written questionnaire to obtain the firm‟s experience in attempting to do business with the state or with an entity already contracted by the state as well as their business experiences in the public and private sector. Each participant was notified that notes would be taken and their responses would be held in strict confidence and would not be distributed to any other firm or person with their firm‟s identity revealed. Classique, LLC also asked if there would be any objections to recording the sessions. Specific questions were asked to each of the participants and the responses of those that had commentary were duly noted. Follow up questions and general group discussions resulted in some cases. 8.1.3 Public Hearings MGT conducted two public hearings in Tucson and Phoenix with owners and representatives of firms located in the state of Arizona. The hearings were advertised in local newspapers; with civic, trade, and non-profit organizations; and event signage. Documentation assembled by the ADOT was provided for additional outreach support. MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-3 Anecdotal Analysis The first public hearing was held at the Joel D. Valdez Public Library on Wednesday, May 28, 2008, from 5:30 until 8:00pm. The second public hearing was held at the Burton Barr Central Library on Thursday, May 29, 2008, from 5:30 until 8:30 pm. Individuals who attended were asked to sign an attendance sheet, and those who desired to give testimony were noted on the sign in sheets. In Phoenix, there were 32 signees and seven individuals who desired to speak. There were eight attendees at the Tucson public hearing and two chose to speak. Both hearings had one facilitator and two panelists. The facilitator or moderator started the meeting and ensured service where necessary. The panel received testimony and asked questions for the purposes of clarification. The hearing panel consisted of two individuals from MGT. Individuals seeking to provide testimony were sworn in and asked to provide their name, business name, status related to DBE certification, and years in business. The individuals were also asked to indicate whether or not the firms they represented had done, or attempted to do business with ADOT between June 30, 2002, and July 1, 2007. 8.1.4 Telephone Survey The telephone survey process was conducted from May 23 to June 27, 2008. Donato & Associates LLC, MGT‟s Vail, Arizona, based sub-consultant, called all firms provided from the master vendor list created by MGT. The statistical model showed that 432 responses were needed to achieve a confidence interval of 95 percent with a 5 percent margin of error; 524 surveys were completed. In addition to meeting the goal of 432 completed interviews, targets were provided for each business category and gender/ethnic group. This was done to eliminate any biases in the response data by ensuring appropriate representation from all business categories, ethnicities and genders. To this end, Donato & Associates LLC attempted to contact business owners or knowledgeable representatives from firms. At least five attempts were made per interview candidate and representatives from 524 firms were successfully interviewed. The following targets in Exhibit 8-3 were used for the telephone survey. EXHIBIT 8-3 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY TARGETS Primary Line of Business Target Completion 110 100 78 110 46 62 41 47 156 150 Target Completion M/WBE 158 218 Non-M/WBE 275 307 0 6 Building Construction/ Special Trade Contactor Professional Services General/Personal Services (OS) Supplies and Equipment (GS) Architecture/Engineering Race/Ethnicity No Response Source: Donato & Associates, LLC. MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-4 Anecdotal Analysis All interviewers were instructed to call every vendor with an available number up to five times before coding them as “No Response.” Each vendor was called no more than once per day. Calls met by a receptionist or voicemail were left a message with a return number for the vendor to call back regarding the survey. While every attempt was made to gain participation from firms representing each category of ethnicity, gender, and business type, two factors created challenges: differences between the Master Vendor database classifications for ethnicity, gender, and/or business type compared to participants‟ self-reported classifications, and difficulty in getting participation from the owner or manager. Exhibit 8-4 shows the disposition of the telephone canvassing efforts. According to the phone call log, the following results were obtained. EXHIBIT 8-4 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISPOSITION OF TELEPHONE CALLS Result Total Number of Companies Called Wrong Number Disconnected Number No Answer Called, No Response Refused to Participate Completed Interviews Number 1,274 62 77 4 294* 275 524 Source: Donato & Associates, LLC. *71 companies were called 1, 2, 3, or 4 times before the cutoff date for the completion of surveys. 7 additional companies were duplicate (also listed under another company name). 31 additional companies had either already completed or were scheduled to complete a one on one survey. 8.2 Telephone Survey Demographics Exhibit 8-5 provides a profile of those businesses that participated in the telephone survey. The businesses that participated in the telephone survey were mainly Construction/Specialty Contractors (29.38 percent) and Architectural/Engineering (28.63 percent) of all participants, followed by Professional Services (20.99 percent). Of the respondents successfully interviewed, 71 percent were M/WBE firms and 24 percent were non-M/WBE firms. Twenty-nine respondents (5 percent) did not indicate their ethnic origin and an additional two respondents would not indicate if they were women-owned. M/WBE firms that responded to the telephone survey were primarily Professional Services (24 percent) followed by Construction (22 percent) and Architectural/ Engineering (16 percent). MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-5 Anecdotal Analysis Most non-M/WBE firms that participated in the telephone survey were Architectural/ Engineering (55 percent). Next, in order of succession, were Professional services (14 percent) and General/Personal Services and Construction, both at 11 percent. MGT‟s analysis of the respondents‟ length of time in operation showed that only ten firms (1.9 percent) of the 519 surveyed had been in business prior to 1940. Thirty-one percent of the surveyed firms had been in business prior to 1990. The vast majority of those surveyed (66 percent) had started their businesses between the years of 1990 and 2008. Non-M/WBE firms tended to be older firms compared to M/WBE firms. In each M/WBE category, the greater number of firms commenced operations between 2000 and 2008, with the exception of nonminority women who commenced more operations between the years of 1990 and 1999 (38 percent) followed by 2000 through 2008 (32 percent). A majority of the business owners surveyed (67 percent) had attained a college degree, or completed postgraduate studies. Asian Americans fell into these categories 80 percent of the time followed by African Americans with 76 percent and nonminority women with 68 percent. Only 52 percent of non-M/WBE firms fell into these categories. There was some reluctance to answering this question regarding income levels with 14 percent to 29 percent of each category giving a no response answer. The participating firms generated varying levels of revenue, resulting in a good cross section for the data analysis. Of those that did answer, nonminority males and Native Americans earned slightly higher incomes followed by Asian and Hispanic Americans. African Americans and nonminority women earned the least. Only 11 percent of M/W/DBEs had a single project bonding limit of $1 million to $1.5 million. Exhibit 8-5 provides an overview of the demographics for the telephone survey participants. MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-6 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-5 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS Demographics Race Or Ethnic Origin Respondent’s Job Type Manager/Financial Officer African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE Non-M/WBE No Response Total Respondents 51 29 106 24 155 365 125 29 519 5 10% 4 14% 10 9% 2 8% 14 9% 36 10% 27 22% 16 55% Other 0 0% 1 3% 4 4% 0 0% 9 6% 14 4% 9 7% 9 31% Owner/CEO/President Primary Line of Business 46 90% 24 83% 92 87% 22 92% 132 85% 318 86% 89 71% 4 14% Construction 10 20% 4 14% 36 34% 8 33% 23 15% 82 22% 14 11% 4 14% Special Trade Contractor 6 12% 2 7% 22 21% 0 0% 21 14% 51 14% 3 2% 0 0% Professional Services General/Personal Services 9 18% 5 17% 17 16% 6 25% 52 34% 90 24% 17 14% 3 10% 10 20% 4 14% 12 11% 2 8% 18 12% 46 13% 14 11% 2 7% Supplies and Equipment 10 20% 1 3% 7 7% 3 13% 17 11% 38 10% 8 6% 0 0% Arch./Engineering 6 12% 13 45% 12 11% 5 21% 23 15% 60 16% 69 55% 20 69% No Response 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-7 519 519 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-5 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS Demographics African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE Non-M/WBE No Response Total Respondents 51 29 106 24 155 365 125 29 519 Race Or Ethnic Origin Year Established 2000-2008 28 55% 13 45% 57 54% 9 38% 49 32% 158 43% 39 31% 2 7% 1990-1999 19 37% 7 24% 29 27% 8 33% 59 38% 125 34% 20 16% 3 10% 1980-1989 1 2% 6 21% 14 13% 5 21% 37 24% 63 17% 32 26% 5 17% 1970-1979 0 0% 2 7% 5 5% 2 8% 8 5% 17 5% 12 10% 3 10% 1960-1969 3 6% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 4 1% 11 9% 5 17% 1950-1959 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 3% 2 7% 1940-1949 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 2% 3 10% Before 1940 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 1 0% 4 3% 5 17% Did Not Know 0 0% 1 3% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 0-10 37 73% 21 72% 64 60% 12 50% 115 74% 252 68% 45 36% 8 28% 11-20 9 18% 4 14% 19 18% 8 33% 15 10% 55 15% 23 18% 2 7% 21-30 1 2% 4 14% 7 7% 3 13% 11 7% 26 7% 14 11% 1 3% 31-40 0 0% 0 0% 6 6% 0 0% 3 2% 9 2% 7 6% 0 0% 41-50 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 3% 8 2% 1 1% 1 3% 51-60 1 2% 0 0% 4 4% 1 4% 1 1% 3 1% 3 2% 0 0% 61-70 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 4% 1 1% 2 1% 4 3% 7 24% 71-80 1 2% 0 0% 2 2% 0 0% 0 0% 3 1% 3 2% 0 0% 81-90 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 2 1% 3 1% 1 1% 2 7% 91-100 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 101-250 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 0 0% 3 2% 4 1% 12 10% 3 10% 251-500 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 5 4% 3 10% 519 Number of Employees MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-8 519 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-5 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS Demographics African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE Non-M/WBE No Response Total Respondents 51 29 106 24 155 365 125 29 519 Race Or Ethnic Origin Number of Employees 501-1000 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 2 7% Over 1000 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 3% 5 17% Don‟t Know 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 3 10% 0-10 43 84% 24 83% 81 76% 20 83% 131 85% 302 82% 81 65% 7 24% 11-20 6 12% 5 17% 6 6% 3 13% 15 10% 35 10% 19 15% 2 7% 21-30 0 0% 0 0% 9 8% 0 0% 3 2% 12 3% 1 1% 1 3% 31-40 0 0% 0 0% 3 3% 0 0% 1 1% 4 1% 2 2% 0 0% 41-50 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 0 0% 2 1% 4 1% 2 2% 4 14% 51-60 1 2% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 1 1% 3 1% 1 1% 0 0% 61-70 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 71-80 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 81-90 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 2% 0 0% 91-100 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 101-250 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 1 0% 2 2% 2 7% 251-500 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 501-1000 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% Over 1000 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Don‟t Know 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 1 4% 1 1% 4 1% 12 10% 13 45% Number of Minority MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-9 519 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-5 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS Demographics African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE Non-M/WBE No Response Total Respondents 51 29 106 24 155 365 125 29 519 Race Or Ethnic Origin 51% Women Owned Yes (51% Women Owned) No (Not 51% Women Owned) 19 37% 5 17% 30 28% 6 25% 155 100% 218 59% 0 0% 0 0% 32 63% 24 83% 76 72% 18 75% 0 0% 150 41% 125 100% 25 86% No Response 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 14% Some high school 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 1 0% 6 5% 0 0% High school graduate Trade or technical education 0 0% 1 3% 13 12% 2 8% 14 9% 30 8% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 0 0% 4 4% 0 0% 1 1% 6 2% 11 9% 0 0% Some college 11 22% 3 10% 24 23% 7 29% 30 19% 75 20% 43 34% 1 3% College degree 21 41% 15 52% 39 37% 9 38% 62 40% 148 40% 56 45% 1 3% Post graduate degree 18 35% 8 28% 21 20% 5 21% 44 28% 97 26% 9 7% 5 17% No response 0 0% 2 7% 5 5% 1 4% 3 2% 11 3% 0 0% 22 76% 1 -10 years 9 18% 0 0% 20 19% 3 13% 19 12% 52 14% 3 2% 3 10% 11-20 years 19 37% 14 48% 31 29% 5 21% 50 32% 119 32% 33 26% 3 10% 21-30 years 18 35% 9 31% 34 32% 9 38% 65 42% 137 37% 45 36% 4 14% 31-40 years 5 10% 5 17% 17 16% 4 17% 17 11% 48 13% 29 23% 1 3% 41-50 years 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 2 8% 0 0% 5 1% 4 3% 0 0% 51 or more 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 1 4% 0 0% 2 1% 3 2% 0 0% Don‟t know 0 0% 1 3% 0 0% 0 0% 4 3% 5 1% 8 6% 21 72% 519 Education Level 519 Years of Experience MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-10 519 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-5 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS Demographics African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE Non M/WBE No Response Total Respondents 51 29 106 24 155 365 125 29 519 Race Or Ethnic Origin Company’s Gross Revenues Up to $50,000 7 14% 4 14% 8 8% 1 4% 10 6% 30 8% 1 1% 0 0% $50,001 - $100,000 3 6% 1 3% 9 8% 3 13% 12 8% 28 8% 4 3% 0 0% $100,001 - 300,000 11 22% 2 7% 13 12% 3 13% 29 19% 59 16% 8 6% 2 7% $ 300,001 - $500,000 5 10% 2 7% 11 10% 2 8% 17 11% 37 10% 9 7% 1 3% $500,001 - 1,000,000 8 16% 6 21% 14 13% 2 8% 21 14% 51 14% 11 9% 0 0% $1,000,001 - $3,000,000 5 10% 5 17% 12 11% 4 17% 15 10% 42 11% 22 18% 0 0% $3,000,001 - $5,000,000 $5,000,001 $10,000,000 0 0% 5 17% 7 7% 2 8% 14 9% 28 8% 13 10% 0 0% 3 6% 0 0% 9 8% 1 4% 3 2% 16 4% 7 6% 3 10% No Response 9 18% 4 14% 22 21% 5 21% 33 21% 74 20% 36 29% 16 55% Over $10,000,000 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 1 4% 1 1% 3 1% 14 11% 7 24% 519 0% Bonding Required? Don‟t Know 3 6% 0 0% 3 3% 0 0% 5 3% 11 3% 5 4% 3 10% No 25 49% 23 79% 56 53% 16 67% 112 72% 232 63% 94 75% 16 55% Yes Current Aggregate Bonding Limit $1,000,001 to $1,500,000 23 45% 6 21% 47 44% 8 33% 38 25% 122 33% 26 21% 10 34% 4 17% 0 0% 3 7% 1 13% 3 8% 11 9% 2 7% 1 10% $100,001 to $500,000 3 13% 2 29% 6 13% 1 13% 3 8% 15 12% 2 7% 0 0% $500,001 to $1,000,000 2 9% 2 29% 3 7% 1 13% 5 13% 13 11% 3 11% 0 0% Below $100,000 4 17% 1 14% 5 11% 0 0% 4 11% 14 11% 2 7% 0 0% Don‟t Know 0 0% 0 0% 5 11% 0 0% 8 21% 13 11% 6 22% 2 20% MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-11 519 519 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-5 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS Demographics African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE Non-M/WBE No Response Total Respondents 51 29 106 24 155 365 125 29 519 Race Or Ethnic Origin Current Aggregate Bonding Limit None 4 17% 0 0% 7 15% 2 25% 4 11% 17 14% 2 7% 2 Not applicable 4 17% 2 29% 5 11% 0 0% 4 11% 15 12% 6 22% 0 20% 0% Over $1,500,000 Single Project Bonding Limit 2 9% 0 0% 12 26% 3 38% 7 18% 24 20% 4 15% 5 50% Below $100,000 4 17% 1 14% 6 13% 0 0% 4 11% 15 12% 1 4% 0 0% $100,001 to $500,000 2 9% 2 29% 8 17% 1 13% 5 13% 18 15% 2 7% 0 0% $500,001 to $1,000,000 $1,000,001 to $1,500,000 2 9% 2 29% 2 4% 1 13% 2 5% 9 7% 2 7% 0 0% 2 9% 0 0% 6 13% 2 25% 3 8% 13 11% 2 7% 2 20% Over $1,500,000 3 13% 0 0% 7 15% 3 38% 6 16% 19 16% 5 19% 1 10% Don‟t Know 0 0% 0 0% 5 11% 0 0% 7 18% 12 10% 5 19% 3 30% None 4 17% 0 0% 5 11% 1 13% 6 16% 16 13% 4 15% 2 20% Not Applicable 6 26% 2 29% 7 15% 0 0% 5 13% 20 16% 6 22% 2 20% Source: * 2 unknown if women-owned, Caucasian status. MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-12 519 Anecdotal Analysis 8.3 Procurement Process 8.3.1 Survey Results: Bidding The telephone survey included questions designed to solicit interviewee responses related to conducting business as a Prime Contractor or Vendor with the ADOT. An inquiry was made about submitting bids both with ADOT and other public agencies. Analysis of the survey showed that 54 percent of non-M/WBE firms that responded to the survey and 76 percent of M/WBE firms tended not to bid in ADOT contracts as a prime. Exhibit 8-6 outlines the responses by ethnicity. MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-13 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-6 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY PROCUREMENT PROCESS BY ETHNICITY African Demographics American Race Or Ethnic Origin 51 Submitting bids as a prime to the ADOT Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE NonM/WBE No Response Total Respondents 29 106 24 155 365 125 29 519* 0 40 78% 23 79% 83 78% 15 63% 113 75% 275 76% 61 54% 11 41% 1-10 11 22% 4 14% 13 12% 7 29% 29 19% 66 18% 39 34% 9 33% 11-25 0 0% 1 3% 1 1% 0 0% 5 3% 7 2% 8 7% 1 4% 26-50 0 0% 0 0% 4 4% 1 4% 1 1% 6 2% 4 4% 2 7% 51-100 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 2 1% 3 1% 1 1% 3 11% Over 100 0 0% Number of Contracts with ADOT as a Prime 1 3% 1 1% 1 4% 1 1% 4 1% 1 1% 1 4% 2% 10 8% 3 9% 60 48% 15 47% Don‟t Know 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 0 0% 4 3% 6 No 49 96% 27 93% 94 89% 19 79% 122 79% 313 Yes 2 4% 2 Performing as a sub in the public/private sector 7% 10 9% 5 21% 29 19% 49 13% 55 44% 14 44% Don‟t Know 1 2% 0 0% 3 3% 1 4% 2 1% 7 2% 2 2% 1 3% No 13 25% 6 21% 18 17% 5 21% 28 18% 71 19% 21 17% 6 19% Yes 37 73% 23 79% 85 80% 18 75% 125 81% 290 79% 102 82% 25 78% MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-14 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-6 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY PROCUREMENT PROCESS BY ETHNICITY African Asian Demographics American American Race Or Ethnic Origin 51 29 Number of Non ADOT public agency bids since 2002 11 4 0 24% 14% 1-20 16 21-40 6 41-60 2 61-80 3 81-100 2 35% 9 13% 3 4% 4 7% 0 1 Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE NonM/WBE No Response Total Respondents 106 24 155 365 125 29 519* 15 14% 5 24% 25 20% 31% 28 26% 6 29% 43 35% 102 32% 10% 5 5% 3 14% 16 13% 33 10% 14% 3 3% 1 5% 15 12% 0% 6 6% 0 0% 1 1% 3% 10 9% 3 14% 1 1% 3 14% 22 18% 4% 6 6 101 or more 13% Amount of Time To Receive Payment for ADOT Projects 21% Less than 30 days 2 25% 1 14% 13 36% 4 44% 43 30 - 60 days 4 50% 3 43% 17 47% 4 44% 60 - 90 days 2 25% 2 29% 4 11% 1 11% 90 - 120 days 0 0% 0 0% 2 6% 0 Over 120 days 0 0% 1 Amount of Time To Receive Payment for Private Projects 14% 0 0% Less than 30 days 23 47% 12 41% 34 30 - 60 days 20 41% 9 31% 60 - 90 days 6 12% 5 17% 90 - 120 days 0 0% 3 Over 120 days 0 0% 0 61 25 11 19% 8% 3% 18% 7 29% 27 23% 2 8% 13 11% 2 8% 9% 2 8% 3% 0 0% 3 13% 8 33% 21 11 4 27 8% 13 11% 61 19% 27 23% 28% 46 36% 19 25% 6 35% 71 47% 54 42% 38 50% 9 53% 28 19% 19 15% 14 18% 1 6% 0% 7 5% 8 6% 2 3% 1 6% 0 0% 2 1% 2 2% 3 4% 0 0% 32% 7 30% 43 28% 122 34% 15 14% 7 28% 51 49% 12 52% 71 47% 163 45% 54 52% 11 44% 16 15% 3 13% 28 19% 58 16% 26 25% 5 20% 10% 2 2% 1 4% 7 5% 13 4% 8 8% 2 8% 0% 2 2% 0 0% 2 1% 4 1% 1 1% 0 0% 23 22% Source: * 2 unknown if women-owned, Caucasian status. Donato & Associates LLC Page 8-15 Anecdotal Analysis 8.3.2 Survey Results: Procurement Barriers In the normal course of business, entrepreneurs will face barriers when establishing and operating a business enterprise. Particular factors also may emerge that prevent a business from being selected for a contract or purchase order. This section reviews participant responses concerning barriers they faced in the procurement process and factors that frequently prevented them from winning contracts or purchase orders. Questions in the telephone survey were designed to gather business owner perceptions about ADOT‟s procurement process and their experiences doing business with ADOT. The responses from the participant firms are presented in Exhibit 8-7. Analysis of the responses showed that, for the most part, firms chose to respond to questions about barriers to doing business with ADOT. Across the board, about 10 percent of the survey participants had no response to questions about procurement requirements or other aspects of doing business with ADOT. However, the firm representatives who had no response to these questions agreed to participate in the survey and continued through completion of the inquiries. They simply chose not to answer these questions. MGT could not determine if the lack of response was due to fear of retaliation for responding, general disinterest, or other factors. Of the M/WBE interviewees who responded to questions about barriers to doing business, key issues noted were as follows:      Size of contracts (23 percent). Limited information received on pending projects (28 percent). Time allotted to prepare bids and quotes (23 percent). Expenses associated with bid preparation (24 percent). Pre-qualification requirements (17 percent). Respondents were also asked how long it took to receive payment on both ADOT projects and private projects. With respect to ADOT project payments, both M/WBE firms and non-M/WBE firms answered that they received their payments between one and 60 days (75 percent and 78 percent of the time, respectively). For private projects, payment time varied slightly with 75 percent and 79 percent respectively. One classification, Asian American, indicated that they received payment over 120 days for ADOT projects 14 percent of the time. MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-16 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-7 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY BARRIERS TO DOING BUSINESS BY ETHNICITY Demographics A. Pre-qualification Requirements? African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE NonM/WBE No Response Yes 10 20% 5 17% 25 24% 3 13% 20 13% 63 17% 14 11% 3 9% No 27 53% 19 66% 62 58% 15 63% 94 61% 219 60% 92 74% 25 78% No Response 14 B. Performance Bond Requirements? 27% 5 17% 19 18% 6 25% 41 26% 86 23% 19 15% 4 13% Yes 13 25% 3 10% 21 20% 3 13% 12 8% 53 14% 3 2% 3 9% No 22 43% 16 55% 61 58% 15 63% 85 55% 200 54% 88 70% 22 69% No Response C. Bid Bond Requirements 16 31% 10 34% 24 23% 6 25% 58 37% 115 31% 34 27% 7 22% Yes 12 24% 2 7% 19 18% 2 8% 11 7% 47 13% 5 4% 2 6% No 23 45% 17 59% 62 58% 16 67% 88 57% 207 56% 83 66% 23 72% No Response 16 31% 10 34% 25 24% 6 25% 56 36% 114 31% 37 30% 7 22% Yes 11 22% 2 7% 19 18% 1 4% 12 8% 47 13% 4 3% 2 6% No 27 53% 18 62% 66 62% 17 71% 92 59% 220 60% 100 80% 26 81% No Response 13 25% 9 31% 21 20% 6 25% 51 33% 101 27% 21 17% 4 13% Total Respondents 519 519 519 D. Financing? MGT of America, Inc. 519 Page 8-17 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-7 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY BARRIERS TO DOING BUSINESS BY ETHNICITY Demographics E. Insurance Requirements African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE NonM/WBE No Response Yes 9 18% 0 0% 11 10% 3 13% 14 9% 37 10% 18 14% 3 9% No 31 61% 22 76% 73 69% 16 67% 98 63% 242 66% 89 71% 24 75% No Response 11 F. Bid Specifications Too Rigid? 22% 7 24% 22 21% 5 21% 43 28% 89 24% 18 14% 5 16% Yes 8 16% 0 0% 18 17% 3 13% 22 14% 51 14% 14 11% 2 6% No 31 61% 18 62% 67 63% 16 67% 84 54% 218 59% 91 73% 25 78% No Response 12 24% 11 38% G. Limited Time Given to Prepare Bid Package or Quote? 21 20% 5 21% 49 32% 99 27% 20 16% 5 16% Yes 15 29% 3 10% 27 25% 5 21% 33 21% 83 23% 27 22% 9 28% No 26 51% 19 66% 61 58% 14 58% 79 51% 201 55% 80 64% 19 59% 7 24% 18 17% 5 21% 43 28% 84 23% 18 14% 4 13% No Response 10 20% H. Limited Information Received on Pending Projects? Yes 20 39% 6 21% 28 26% 8 33% 42 27% 104 28% 23 18% 8 25% No 21 41% 16 55% 61 58% 11 46% 77 50% 188 51% 83 66% 20 63% No Response 10 20% 7 24% 17 16% 5 21% 36 23% 76 21% 19 15% 4 13% MGT of America, Inc. Total Respondents 519 519 519 519 Page 8-18 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-7 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY BARRIERS TO DOING BUSINESS BY ETHNICITY Demographics African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE NonM/WBE No Response Total Respondents I. Limited Knowledge of Purchasing/Contracting Policies and Procedures? Yes 14 27% 5 17% 20 19% 2 8% 22 14% 64 17% 16 13% 5 16% No 24 47% 15 52% 68 64% 17 71% 92 59% 217 59% 89 71% 22 69% No Response 13 25% 9 31% 18 17% 5 21% 41 26% 87 24% 20 16% 5 16% 519 J. Lack of Experience? Yes 9 18% 4 14% 15 14% 1 4% 24 15% 54 15% 17 14% 9 28% No 32 63% 18 62% 73 69% 18 75% 90 58% 232 63% 91 73% 20 63% No Response 10 20% 7 24% 18 17% 5 21% 41 26% 82 22% 17 14% 3 9% 519 K. Lack of Personnel? Yes 8 16% 5 17% 15 14% 5 21% 27 17% 61 17% 26 21% 8 25% No 33 65% 18 62% 73 69% 14 58% 86 55% 225 61% 84 67% 21 66% No Response 10 20% 6 21% 18 17% 5 21% 42 27% 82 22% 15 12% 3 9% 519 L. Contract Too Large? Yes 14 27% 4 14% 29 27% 5 21% 33 21% 86 23% 24 19% 2 6% No 24 47% 17 59% 57 54% 14 58% 79 51% 192 52% 84 67% 27 84% No Response 13 25% 8 28% 20 19% 5 21% 43 28% 90 24% 17 14% 3 9% MGT of America, Inc. 519 Page 8-19 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-7 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY BARRIERS TO DOING BUSINESS BY ETHNICITY African Demographics American M. Contract Too Expensive to Bid? Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE NonM/WBE No Response Yes 14 27% 4 14% 29 27% 5 21% 25 16% 79 21% 19 15% 2 6% No 24 47% 17 59% 57 54% 14 58% 84 54% 197 54% 85 68% 27 84% No Response 13 25% 8 Amount of Time To Receive Payment for ADOT Projects Less than 30 days 2 25% 1 28% 20 19% 5 21% 46 30% 92 25% 21 17% 3 9% 14% 13 36% 4 44% 43 28% 46 36% 19 25% 6 35% 30 - 60 days 4 50% 3 43% 17 47% 4 44% 71 47% 54 42% 38 50% 9 53% 60 - 90 days 2 25% 2 29% 4 11% 1 11% 28 19% 19 15% 14 18% 1 6% 90 - 120 days 0 0% 0 0% 2 6% 0 0% 7 5% 8 6% 2 3% 1 6% Over 120 days 0 0% 1 Amount of Time To Receive Payment for Private Projects Less than 30 days 23 47% 12 14% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 2 2% 3 4% 0 0% 41% 34 32% 7 30% 43 28% 122 34% 15 14% 7 28% 30 - 60 days 20 41% 9 31% 51 49% 12 52% 71 47% 163 45% 54 52% 11 44% 60 - 90 days 6 12% 5 17% 16 15% 3 13% 28 19% 58 16% 26 25% 5 20% 90 - 120 days 0 0% 3 10% 2 2% 1 4% 7 5% 13 4% 8 8% 2 8% Over 120 days 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 0 0% 2 1% 4 1% 1 1% 0 0% MGT of America, Inc. Total Respondents 519 Page 8-20 Anecdotal Analysis 8.3.3 Results from the Focus Group, Interviews, and Public Hearings Of the 50 firm representatives interviewed, 24 (48 percent) believed that the ADOT procurement process was fair. The same percentage answered that their firm had not been treated unfairly. Fourteen respondents, however, had no opinion as to whether or not their firm had been fairly treated, while 18 had no opinion on the fairness of the process. In the majority of those cases, answers arose from a lack of knowledge on the firm‟s part about the procurement process, and the way in which ADOT makes purchasing decisions. Many respondents in this category stated that they had repeatedly contacted ADOT about opportunities in their lines of business, but had found none.  An African-American owner of a cleaning firm stated that he had contacted ADOT several times about opportunities when starting the business more than a decade before; having received no response, he stopped trying. Although his firm is registered as a DBE, he does not receive e-mails or flyers about ADOT projects. By contrast, his contacts with other state agencies successfully led to contracts.  A representative of a W/DBE selling promotional products noted that the few Requests for Qualifications (RFQs) her company received from ADOT were not in their line of business, and therefore, the firm had not bid or quoted at all. She suggested that ADOT clarify the avenues for participation for firms of her type. This sentiment was echoed by two other representatives of W/DBE firms also in the promotional products field.  An Asian American publisher of a newspaper stated that although she was registered as a DBE firm, she had not received notification from ADOT of upcoming contract opportunities. She attributed this to a lack of interest on ADOT‟s part to reach out to Asian American communities in the state, due to this population‟s small demographic.  A woman owner of a private investigations firm previously certified as W/DBE stated that she had wasted her time and money traveling from Tucson to Phoenix for training on how to do business with ADOT, only to find that there were no opportunities available in her field.  The Hispanic American owner of a design and video production firm noted that while he interacted with ADOT representatives at numerous networking and outreach meetings, he had never been notified of opportunities to bid on projects in his field. He later became aware that contracts had been awarded to firms doing similar work, and wondered why he hadn‟t been informed of the bids. These responses were representative of those from firms that had not yet participated in the contracting process, and had no basis on which to make a judgment about fairness. Such firms were concentrated in the areas of professional services, other services, and goods and supplies. Respondents stated that lack of information was their primary obstacle to winning contracts with ADOT. MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-21 Anecdotal Analysis Those who believed they had been treated unfairly in the selection process expressed a number of reasons:  An Asian American engineering firm owner, who characterized the selection process as “extremely unfair,” noted that his company‟s references were not checked while bidding for an on-call contract. He suspected that the references of other firms were not checked either, leading him to believe that ADOT was not applying criteria fairly in the selection process.  A representative of a woman-owned engineering firm stated that existing relationships with ADOT played a tremendous role in the selection of another firm for a contract. He further noted that relationships between ex- or soon-tobe ex-ADOT employees and specific firms appear to result in contracts for those firms.  A Hispanic American construction firm owner, who believed that the unfairness was “extensive,” stated that ADOT allowed a favored general contractor to change his bid to a higher value, after opening, when the general contractor said he couldn‟t do the job for the lower price. When asked whether ADOT made any attempts to encourage their bids on projects, 70 percent of firm representatives responded affirmatively, 28 percent negatively, and 2 percent had no specific opinion. Many who responded affirmatively held a positive view of the outreach efforts provided by the DBE program, with several respondents commending the efforts of Mr. Ralph Gonzales specifically. Project Size and Size of Firm Project size was the obstacle to contracting most often cited by engineering and construction firms, and noted by approximately 40 percent of all respondents in personal interviews. Representatives of several engineering firms stated that although their staff members possess excellent qualifications, ADOT favors larger engineering firms even though both the large firm and the smaller firm will put the same number of engineering professionals on the job. ADOT errs, many argued, in looking only at firm size without critically evaluating the resources a firm will devote to the project. Respondents noted that a large firm has many staffers who perform functions such as marketing and administration, along with many engineers who will not be working on the ADOT project because they are working on something else. A small engineering firm dedicated to the ADOT task, they argued, can be at least as effective as a large firm, if not more so. This perception was common among engineering firms regardless of owner‟s ethnicity. Project size was also a limiting factor for several professional service firms. A political consultant, head of her own W/DBE firm who has worked many projects in the public relations field, argued that prime consultants are not as likely to use one-person consultancies as larger firms. Even though her consultancy typically makes use of a network from which she can draw different types of expertise, her position as a onewoman firm is perceived as a negative by several primes. Another W/DBE business owner, who had previously worked two or three projects a year for ADOT, stated that after ADOT consolidated the public relations function into larger contracts, she was unable to compete. To do so successfully, she would have had to hire additional staff MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-22 Anecdotal Analysis such as an environmental attorney and environmental engineer, and keep them on the payroll. This precluded her from bidding on ADOT contracts for public relations work, as she had done in the past. Other Obstacles in Procurement Firm representatives mentioned additional obstacles in the ADOT procurement process. In the construction field, bonding and insurance requirements placed obstacles in the way of smaller firms competing for large contracts. In some cases, respondents noted that primes required their subs to list them as additional insureds on the subs‟ insurance policies, thus increasing the cost of insurance for a subcontractor. The cost of bonding was also an issue for several firms; some suggested that ADOT cover bonding costs for a small firm until the firm is able to do so. Some obstacles are listed below.  A Hispanic American owner of a firm providing photogrammetry services (mapmaking from aerial data) noted that some competing firms send their mapmaking work to foreign countries whose citizens work for lower pay than in the U.S. Despite providing lower quality of work, and despite having no certification in photogrammetry, the use of overseas firms has allowed his competitors to provide lower prices to ADOT primes.  Several engineering firms had difficulty in getting ADOT to accept their overhead rates, even though firm representatives could demonstrate that their rates were well-justified.  Several Tucson firm representatives noted that their distance from Phoenix posed obstacles to contracting. Difficulties included getting timely information from ADOT officials on construction projects even though the projects were in Southern Arizona; identifying Phoenix firms willing to place Tucson subconsultants on a team; and the lack of willingness on ADOT‟s part to reimburse a Tucson firm for travel to the Phoenix area. One owner of a Tucson-based engineering firm stated that he had documentation proving that ADOT would hire another firm rather than pay his firm‟s travel costs for Phoenix area work.  At one of the public hearings one minority vendor stated that, “Another issue that I think faces all minority owned firms is for those that are fortunate to get work in ADOT, is one of prompt pay...I called into my office on the way down here and we just received word on an ADOT project that our invoice has been received and we might expect the money in about 49 days. For a small business, that is a catastrophe. Cash is king in any business, but particularly a small business. So when our people‟s businesses that are prime contractors are not paid on time, it really affects our cash flow and ability to do business and stay in business.”  At one of the public hearings another minority vendor stated that, “One of the problems that you‟re going to go face over and over again is bonding. We talk to ADOT over and over again, but bonding is the big issue. That is the big hurdle. That is why they all get us with the bonding. Well, they say go to SBA. That bonding program is worse than it is on the open market for the MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-23 Anecdotal Analysis requirements. We need to have a specific program within ADOT to handle the bonding issue…bonding companies don‟t understand contractors even though they issue contractor bonds. …With two or three years of financials, they can‟t get bonds.” 8.4 Financing 8.4.1 Survey Results The econometric analysis of data from the National Survey of Small Business Finance found evidence of disparities in loan denials after controlling for credit worthiness. This section deals with financing and obtaining loans and insurance. Respondents were asked how many times they have applied for a commercial bank loan over the past three years. M/WBE firms answered never to this question 62 percent of the time and nonM/WBE firms answered never 72 percent of the time. Asian American and non-M/WBE firms applied for loans one or more times (24 percent and 20 percent of the time, respectively), while Hispanic Americans and Native Americans applied one or more times 48 percent and 45 percent, respectively. Of those firms that did apply one or more times, non-M/WBE firms were approved 92 percent of the time followed by Asian American firms 80 percent and nonminority women receiving approval 75 percent of the time. Native American firms reported receiving approval only 36 percent of the time followed by African American firms at 53 percent and Hispanic American firms at 60 percent.  Of the 23 M/WBE respondents who applied for a business start up loan, 11 (47.8 percent) were denied.  Of the 58 M/WBE respondents who applied for a operating loan, 21 (36.2 percent) were denied. Exhibit 8-8 summarizes the participants‟ responses. MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-24 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-8 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY FINANCING BY ETHNICITY African Asian Demographics American American How many times have you applied for a commercial bank loan over the past 3 years? Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Non-M/WBE No Response 0 36 71% 22 76% 54 51% 13 54% 101 65% 228 1 6 12% 2 7% 27 25% 8 33% 31 20% 74 62% 90 72% 22 69% 20% 14 11% 0 0% 2 3 6% 3 10% 9 8% 1 4% 9 6% 3 4 8% 2 7% 7 7% 0 0% 3 2% 26 7% 7 6% 1 3% 16 4% 1 1% 0 4 1 2% 0 0% 3 3% 1 4% 1 0% 1% 6 2% 0 0% 0 5 1 2% 0 0% 2 2% 0 0% 0% 1 1% 4 1% 0 0% 0 6 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0% 2 1% 3 1% 0 0% 0 10 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0% 1 4% 2 1% 4 1% 1 1% 0 0% 12 0 0% 0 0% 1 30 0 0% 0 0% 0 1% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 1 1% 1 0% 1 1% 0 Don‟t Know 0 0% 0 Number of times denied a commercial bank loan over the past 3 years? 0% 0% 1 1% 0 0% 4 3% 5 1% 11 9% 9 28% 0 8 53% 8 1 3 20% 2 80% 32 60% 4 36% 39 75% 92 46% 22 92% 1 33% 20% 10 19% 5 45% 8 15% 29 15% 1 4% 0 0% 2 3 20% 3 0 0% 0 0% 5 9% 1 9% 3 6% 15 8% 0 0% 1 33% 0 0% 2 4% 0 0% 2 4% 7 4% 0 0% 0 4 1 0% 7% 0 0% 2 4% 0 0% 0 0% 7 4% 0 0% 0 5 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 1 9% 0 0% 7 4% 0 0% 0 0% 10 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% 11 6% 0 0% 0 0% 30 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 30 15% 1 4% 0 0% Don‟t Know 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 4% 1 33% MGT of America, Inc. Total M/WBE Total Respondents 519 169 Page 8-25 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-8 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY FINANCING BY ETHNICITY Demographics Applied, been approved, or denied for: African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE Non-M/WBE No Response Total Respondents Business start up loan? Yes 4 25% 0 0% 9 16% 3 23% 6 11% 23 16% 2 6% 1 14% No 12 75% 7 100% 47 84% 10 77% 48 89% 125 84% 32 94% 6 86% N/A 47 92% 29 100% 97 92% 21 88% 149 96% 345 94% 123 98% 31 97% Approved 0 0% 0 0% 7 7% 2 8% 3 2% 12 3% 2 2% 0 0% Denied 4 8% 0 0% 2 2% 1 4% 3 2% 11 3% 0 0% 1 3% Gender of Owner (G), Insufficient Business History (IBH), 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 1 1% 4 1% 0 0% 1 3% No Response (NR). Other, (O) and Please Specify in the Last Column, 1 2% 0 0% 1 1% 1 4% 0 0% 3 1% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% (blank) 48 94% 29 100% 104 98% 23 96% 153 99% 359 98% 125 100% 31 97% Yes 10 63% 4 57% 22 39% 3 23% 18 33% 58 39% 8 24% 1 14% No 6 38% 3 43% 34 61% 10 77% 37 67% 91 61% 26 76% 6 86% 187 Approved/Denied? 519 Why denied? 519 Operating Capital Loan? MGT of America, Inc. 188 Page 8-26 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-8 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY FINANCING BY ETHNICITY Demographics African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE Non-M/WBE No Response Total Respondents Approved/Denied? N/A 41 80% 25 86% 84 79% 21 88% 137 88% 310 84% 117 94% 31 97% Approved 7 14% 3 10% 12 11% 2 8% 13 8% 37 10% 7 6% 0 0% Denied 3 6% 1 3% 10 9% 1 4% 5 3% 21 6% 1 1% 1 3% Why denied? CONFUSION ABOUT PROCESS (C), 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 17% 1 18% 0 0% 0 0% GENDER OF OWNER (G), INSUFFICIENT BUSINESS HISTORY (IBH), 0 0% 0 0% 1 10% 0 0% 2 33% 4 36% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 30% 0 0% 1 17% 8 23% 0 0% 1 100% NO RESPONSE (NR). OTHER, (O) AND PLEASE SPECIFY IN THE LAST COLUMN, RACE OR ETHNIC ORIGIN (RE), 1 33% 1 100% 3 30% 0 0% 1 17% 5 18% 1 100% 0 0% 2 67% 0 0% 2 20% 0 0% 1 17% 4 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 10% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% (blank) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Yes 3 19% 1 14% 4 7% 2 15% 6 11% 8 12% 2 6% 0 0% No 13 81% 6 86% 52 93% 11 85% 48 89% 59 88% 32 94% 7 100% N/A 48 94% 28 97% 103 97% 22 92% 150 97% 354 96% 123 98% 32 100% Approved 1 2% 1 3% 2 2% 2 8% 3 2% 9 2% 1 1% 0 0% Denied 2 4% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 2 1% 5 1% 1 1% 0 0% 519 23 Performance Bond? 187 Approved/Denied? MGT of America, Inc. 519 Page 8-27 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-8 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY FINANCING BY ETHNICITY Demographics African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE Non-M/WBE No Response Total Respondents Why denied? Gender of Owner (G), 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0% No Response (NR). 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0% Yes 3 19% 0 0% 5 9% 2 15% 4 67% 27 28% 50 61% 0 0% No 13 81% 7 100% 51 89% 11 85% 2 33% 71 72% 32 39% 7 100% N/A 48 94% 29 100% 102 96% 22 92% 151 97% 355 96% 123 98% 32 100% Approved 1 2% 0 0% 3 3% 2 8% 3 2% 9 2% 1 1% 0 0% Denied 2 4% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 1 1% 4 1% 1 1% 0 0% Gender of Owner (G), 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% No Response (NR). Other, (O) and Please Specify in the Last Column, 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 1 100% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% No 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0% No Answer 51 100% 29 100% 105 99% 24 100% 155 100% 367 100% 125 100% 32 100% 3 Bid Bond? 187 Approved/Denied? 519 Why denied? 3 Equipment Loan? MGT of America, Inc. 519 Page 8-28 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-8 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY FINANCING BY ETHNICITY Demographics African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE Non-M/WBE No Response Total Respondents Approved/Denied? N/A 47 92% 27 93% 94 89% 21 88% 143 92% 335 91% 118 94% 32 100% Approved 1 2% 2 7% 12 11% 2 8% 10 6% 27 7% 6 5% 0 0% Denied 3 6% 0 0% 0 0% 1 4% 2 1% 6 2% 1 1% 0 0% Gender of Owner (G), 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 1 14% 0 0% 0 0% No Response (NR). Other, (O) and Please Specify in the Last Column, 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 2 28% 1 100% 0 0% 2 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 4 57% 0 0% 0 0% Yes 8 50% 1 14% 17 30% 4 31% 20 36% 50 34% 13 38% 7 100% No 8 50% 6 86% 39 70% 9 69% 35 64% 99 66% 21 62% 0 0% N/A 43 84% 28 97% 90 78% 20 83% 137 89% 321 87% 112 90% 31 97% Approved 8 16% 1 3% 16 14% 4 17% 17 11% 46 13% 12 10% 0 0% Denied 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% No 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 519 6 Commercial Liability Insurance MGT of America, Inc. 188 519 Page 8-29 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-8 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY FINANCING BY ETHNICITY Demographics African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE Non-M/WBE No Response Total Respondents Professional Liability Insurance Yes 6 38% 2 29% 11 20% 2 15% 7 13% 28 19% 14 41% 0 0% No 10 63% 5 71% 45 80% 11 85% 48 87% 121 81% 20 59% 7 100% N/A 45 88% 27 93% 96 91% 22 92% 149 96% 342 93% 111 89% 32 100% Approved 6 12% 2 7% 10 9% 2 8% 6 4% 26 7% 14 11% 0 0% MGT of America, Inc. 188 519 Page 8-30 Anecdotal Analysis 8.5 Conducting Business with ADOT as a Subcontractor 8.5.1 Survey Results This section is related to questions pertaining to conducting business with ADOT as a subcontractor.  When the respondents were asked if they were a DBE, 86 percent of all M/WBE firms answered yes while only 4 percent of non-M/WBE firms answered yes. A further breakdown upon ethnic classifications revealed that the percentage of DBE firms across ethnic categories was fairly uniform with Native Americans interviewees having the lowest amount of DBE certification at 79 percent.  261 respondents answered yes when asked if they were registered as a subcontractor with ADOT. The percentages for each ethnic group were fairly consistent at approximately 54 percent for all M/WBE firms and 50 percent for non-M/WBE firms. In comparison, when asked if they had ever served as a subcontractor on an ADOT project, only 10 percent of African Americans answered yes, while 74 percent of non-M/WBEs and 54 percent of nonminority women answered yes.  Interviewees were asked if they felt there was favoritism toward particular subcontractors when procuring services and products for ADOT projects. Nonminority women answered yes only 53 percent of the time while in comparison Asian Americans answered yes 72 percent of the time. Below are some of the explanations as to how this favoritism is shown. An African American female in the construction industry stated, “I have put in several bids. If they don‟t know you, you don‟t get the work.” A nonminority woman-owned architecture and engineering firm stated, “ADOT contracts go to the same firms over and over again. ADOT knows these firms and are comfortable with them.” A Native American male in the construction industry stated, “Hard to break into the market in Arizona. It‟s the „good old boy network.‟” A Native American male in the construction industry stated, “Yes, but everyone is more likely to use people whom they have worked with in the past.” An African American male from a specialty trades firm stated, “They use who they always use. If they are suppose to get a minority contractor, they don‟t.” A Hispanic American male from a goods and supplies firm stated, “I think they go with who they are familiar with” MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-31 Anecdotal Analysis An Asian American male in the architecture and engineering industry stated, “Generally business goes to the same people they have built relationships with” An Asian American female in the architecture and engineering industry stated, “Small businesses have no luck” A nonminority male in the architecture and engineering industry stated, “If you have worked with them in the past, managers want to see people who work well together” Exhibit 8-9 shows the telephone survey results for conducting business with ADOT as a subcontractor. MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-32 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-9 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITH ADOT AS A SUBCONTRACTOR African Asian Demographics American American Company listed as a DBE (disadvantaged) business with the state of Arizona? Hispanic American 1 - Yes 47 92% 25 86% 92 87% 19 79% 130 84% 315 86% 5 4% 4 13% 2 - No 9 - No Response/ Don‟t Know 1 2% 4 14% 13 12% 5 21% 19 12% 43 12% 112 90% 27 84% 3 6% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 6 4% 10 3% 8 6% 1 3% Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE Non-M/WBE No Response Total Respondents 519 Registered as a subcontractor with ADOT? Don‟t Know 9 18% 5 17% 16 15% 2 8% 28 18% 60 16% 19 15% 3 9% No 12 24% 11 38% 28 26% 9 38% 48 31% 109 30% 44 35% 11 34% 519 Yes 30 59% 13 Served as a subcontractor on an ADOT project? 45% 62 58% 13 54% 79 51% 199 54% 62 50% 18 56% Don‟t Know 0 0 0 0% 3 5% 0 0% 3 4% 6 3% 2 3% 2 12% No 28 90% 8 62% 34 53% 8 62% 34 43% 113 56% 15 23% 6 35% Yes 3 10% 5 38% 27 How often have you served as a subcontractor on an ADOT project? 42% 5 38% 43 54% 84 41% 48 74% 9 53% 1 to 10 2 67% 5 100% 15 56% 1 20% 18 44% 42 51% 26 57% 3 38% 11 to 25 1 33% 0 0% 7 26% 1 20% 7 17% 16 20% 7 15% 2 25% 26 to 50 0 0% 0 0% 2 7% 0 0% 7 17% 9 11% 6 13% 1 13% 51 to 100 0 0% 0 0% 1 4% 1 20% 6 15% 8 10% 2 4% 1 13% Over 100 0 0% 0 0% 2 7% 2 40% 3 7% 7 9% 5 11% 1 13% MGT of America, Inc. 284 136 Page 8-33 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-9 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITH ADOT AS A SUBCONTRACTOR African American Demographics Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE Non-M/WBE No Response Total Respondents Been informed that you were awarded a contract then learned that another subcontractor or prime was performing the work? Yes 3 6% 2 7% 8 8% 1 4% 11 7% 25 7% 4 3% 0 0% 505 No 48 94% 26 93% 95 92% 22 96% 138 93% 332 93% 115 97% 30 100% Firm performed subcontracts with the same prime contractor on both federally funded ADOT and state funded ADOT projects? Yes 4 8% 4 14% 22 21% 7 29% 30 20% 68 19% 42 34% 9 28% No No Response/ Don‟t Know 47 92% 25 86% 80 75% 16 67% 113 74% 283 78% 71 57% 20 63% 0 0% 0 0% 4 4% 1 4% 9 6% 14 4% 11 9% 3 9% 519 Firm performed subcontracts with the same prime contractor on both federally funded ADOT and private sector commercial projects? Yes 5 10% 2 7% 21 20% 4 17% 27 47% 84 32% 115 59% 8 25% No No Response/ Don‟t Know 46 90% 26 93% 80 76% 17 74% 30 53% 180 68% 80 41% 22 69% 0 0% 0 0% 4 4% 2 9% 0 0% 2 1% 1 1% 2 6% 457 Favoritism toward particular subcontractors when procuring services/products for ADOT projects? Yes 32 59% 18 72% 51 51% 10 56% 60 43% 173 53% 67 65% 14 52% No 12 22% 7 28% 49 49% 8 44% 78 57% 155 47% 36 35% 13 48% 519 Rate your experience(s) with the prime contractor (if subcontractor since July 1, 2002). Excellent 5 10% 2 7% 32 30% 8 33% 33 21% 80 22% 25 20% 2 6% Good 21 41% 16 55% 34 32% 9 38% 70 45% 151 41% 62 50% 19 59% Fair 2 4% 4 14% 15 14% 2 8% 8 5% 31 8% 14 11% 1 3% Poor No Response/ Don‟t Know 7 14% 1 3% 2 2% 0 0% 3 2% 13 4% 1 1% 0 0% 16 31% 6 21% 23 22% 5 21% 41 26% 93 25% 23 18% 10 31% MGT of America, Inc. 515 Page 8-34 Anecdotal Analysis 8.6 Subcontracting Experience 8.6.1 Survey Results MGT included questions in the telephone survey that asked about respondent experiences when subcontracting to other firms on ADOT projects and on jobs in the private sector. Three key issues emerged from these inquiries. Firm representatives were more concerned about instances where bids or quotes were submitted to prime contractors and the potential subcontractor received no response; subcontractors were concerned about feeling pressure to lower bids or quotes; and firms were concerned about payments being delayed. Of the M/WBE interviewees who responded to questions about barriers to doing business, key issues noted were as follows:     No response to bid or quote (42 percent). Pressured to lower bid or quote (31 percent). Performed different and less work than specified in the contract (26 percent). Payment substantially delayed (38 percent). Exhibit 8-10 summarizes participants‟ responses to questions about their experiences as subcontractors. MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-35 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-10 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY SUBCONTRACTING EXPERIENCES African Asian Demographics American American Provided a bid and/or quote, but the prime contractor and/or consultant never responded Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Yes 24 47% 12 41% 51 48% 9 38% 59 38% 156 42% 41 8% 8 25% No 19 37% 13 45% 37 35% 9 38% 64 41% 142 39% 54 10% 14 44% No Response Was asked to be a front for a non-minority firm 8 16% 4 14% 18 17% 6 25% 32 21% 70 19% 27 5% 10 31% Total M/WBE Non-M/WBE No Response Yes 4 8% 2 7% 9 8% 3 13% 12 8% 30 8% 2 2% 4 13% No 41 80% 25 86% 82 77% 15 63% 108 70% 271 74% 95 76% 22 69% No Response Pressured to lower quote on a bid 6 12% 2 7% 15 14% 6 25% 35 23% 64 17% 28 22% 6 19% Yes 14 27% 9 31% 34 32% 7 29% 51 33% 115 31% 38 30% 10 31% No 30 59% 17 59% 58 55% 12 50% 71 46% 189 51% 60 48% 13 41% No Response Was paid less than the negotiated amount in the contract 7 14% 3 10% 14 13% 5 21% 33 21% 64 17% 27 22% 9 28% Yes 7 14% 2 7% 18 17% 3 13% 19 12% 49 13% 21 17% 4 13% No 36 71% 25 86% 75 71% 16 67% 102 66% 255 69% 78 62% 19 59% No Response 8 16% 2 7% 13 12% 5 21% 34 22% 64 17% 26 21% 9 28% MGT of America, Inc. Total Respondents 519 519 519 519 Page 8-36 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-10 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY SUBCONTRACTING EXPERIENCES Demographics Dropped from the project after prime was awarded the contract African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE Non-M/WBE No Response Yes 4 8% 2 7% 9 8% 3 13% 35 23% 67 18% 15 12% 4 13% No 41 80% 25 86% 82 77% 15 63% 87 56% 231 63% 84 67% 22 69% No Response Completed the job and payment was substantially delayed 6 12% 2 7% 15 14% 6 25% 33 21% 70 19% 26 21% 6 19% Yes 17 33% 9 31% 39 37% 12 50% 61 39% 139 38% 52 42% 9 28% No 27 53% 19 66% 51 48% 7 29% 64 41% 168 46% 44 35% 13 41% No Response Completed the job and never received payment 7 14% 1 3% 16 15% 5 21% 30 19% 61 17% 29 23% 10 31% Yes 6 12% 7 24% 17 16% 7 29% 19 12% 56 15% 20 16% 5 16% No 36 71% 20 69% 75 71% 12 50% 109 70% 253 69% 80 64% 18 56% No Response Did different and less work than specified in the contract 9 18% 2 7% 14 13% 5 21% 27 17% 59 16% 25 20% 9 28% Yes 11 22% 6 21% 28 26% 7 29% 45 29% 97 26% 40 32% 5 16% No 31 61% 20 69% 62 58% 11 46% 81 52% 206 56% 59 47% 17 53% No Response 9 18% 3 10% 16 15% 6 25% 29 19% 65 18% 26 21% 10 31% MGT of America, Inc. Total Respondents 519 519 519 519 Page 8-37 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-10 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY SUBCONTRACTING EXPERIENCES Demographics Was held to higher standards than other subs on the job. African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE Non-M/WBE No Response Yes 12 24% 5 17% 20 19% 4 17% 21 14% 62 17% 5 4% 2 6% No 31 61% 22 76% 66 62% 13 54% 99 64% 232 63% 87 70% 20 63% No Response Was not paid as specified in the contract or payment schedule 8 16% 2 7% 20 19% 7 29% 35 23% 74 20% 33 26% 10 31% Yes 14 27% 2 7% 22 21% 8 33% 30 19% 76 21% 19 15% 1 3% No 28 55% 24 83% 67 63% 11 46% 93 60% 224 61% 75 60% 22 69% No Response Untimely release of retainage 9 18% 3 10% 17 16% 5 21% 32 21% 68 18% 31 25% 9 28% Yes 11 22% 10 34% 15 14% 6 25% 16 10% 58 16% 21 17% 3 9% No 29 57% 17 59% 71 67% 11 46% 98 63% 227 62% 72 58% 20 63% No Response 11 22% 2 7% 20 19% 7 29% 41 26% 83 23% 32 26% 9 28% MGT of America, Inc. Total Respondents 519 519 519 Page 8-38 Anecdotal Analysis 8.6.2 Results from the Focus Group, Interviews, and Public Hearings Respondents were evenly split as to whether ADOT showed favoritism in the contracting process. Some who responded affirmatively did not consider the favoritism unwarranted; rather, a logical outcome of doing business over time with a firm whose product or service ADOT found to be of high quality. In other cases, the favoritism was perceived to be primarily relationship-based and a strong negative. Respondents were more emphatic on the issue of favoritism on the part of primes:  A Hispanic American owner of a construction firm noted that primes will select their subs based on geographical region and previous relationships, and that the lack of DBE goals at the present time facilitates the continuation of unwarranted favoritism.  A female owner of an engineering firm stated that the subconsultants most often used are firms with former ADOT employees. They are not DBE firms, but are used repeatedly, she said. She suggested that the return of DBE goals could mitigate this situation. Several firm representatives emphasized that large primes did not wish to use subcontractors at all. This was particularly true in the case of engineering firms. One African American firm owner was told by a large firm‟s representative that he was their competition (they did not use him); while an Asian American owner believed that ADOT‟s emphasis on using large, out-of-state corporations for many jobs allows those primes to do as they please in hiring or not hiring Arizona subconsultants. 8.7 Discrimination 8.7.1 Survey Results for ADOT Discrimination The telephone survey included questions about business owner experiences with discrimination directed toward them because of race, ethnicity, or gender. The only discrimination cited was verbal by 14 respondents, 54 percent of respondents to the question. Most firms were of the opinion that discrimination was not a factor in the hindrances noted in the previous sections. Slightly less than one in 16 firms complained of discriminatory experiences while conducting business. Of the firms that did cite discriminatory occurrences, Hispanic Americans and women were more likely to note incidents. It should be noted that the responses given in this portion of the survey differed from the responses given later in the survey when the question was asked again. Later in the survey, only 4 percent of the total respondents indicated that they had experienced discriminatory behavior from ADOT in the past. In either case, the incidences of discriminatory behavior from ADOT in the past were low. Exhibit 8-11 summarizes the participants‟ responses. MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-39 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-11 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ADOT DISCRIMINATION TELEPHONE SURVEY BY ETHNICITY African American Demographics Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE Non-M/WBE No Response Total Respondents Discrimination occurrence by ADOT Verbal 0 0% 0 0% 5 56% 1 50% 8 80% 14 54% 2 29% 0 0% Written 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 14% 0 0% Actions 4 100% 1 100% 4 44% 1 50% 2 20% 12 46% 4 57% 0 0% 2 4% 0 0% 6 6% 1 4% 1 1% 10 3% 3 2% 0 0% 33 Owner’s Race or Ethnicity Yes No 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 1 4% 3 2% 5 1% 3 2% 0 0% No Answer 49 96% 29 100% 99 93% 22 92% 151 97% 353 96% 119 95% 32 100% Yes 0 0% 0 0% 3 3% 1 4% 8 5% 12 3% 5 4% 0 0% No 1 2% 0 0% 3 3% 1 4% 1 1% 6 2% 1 1% 0 0% No Answer 50 98% 29 100% 100 94% 22 92% 146 94% 350 95% 119 95% 32 100% Yes 1 2% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 2 2% 0 0% No 1 2% 0 0% 2 2% 1 4% 4 3% 8 2% 5 4% 0 0% No Answer 49 96% 29 100% 103 97% 23 96% 151 97% 358 97% 118 94% 32 100% Yes 2 4% 0 0% 6 6% 1 4% 7 5% 16 4% 5 4% 0 0% No 2 4% 0 0% 0 0% 1 4% 2 1% 5 1% 2 2% 0 0% No Answer 47 92% 29 100% 100 94% 22 92% 146 94% 347 94% 118 94% 32 100% 519 Owner’s Sex 519 Time in Business 519 Before-Contract MGT of America, Inc. 519 Page 8-40 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-11 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ADOT DISCRIMINATION TELEPHONE SURVEY BY ETHNICITY African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Yes 2 4% 1 3% 2 2% 1 4% 3 2% 9 2% 2 2% 0 0% No 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 0 0% 3 2% 5 1% 4 3% 0 0% No Answer 49 96% 28 97% 102 96% 23 96% 148 95% 353 96% 119 95% 32 100% Demographics Nonminority Women Total M/WBE Non-M/WBE No Response Total Respondents After Contract Award 519 Discrimination occurrence by ADOT Verbal 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 50% 3 38% 1 50% 0 0% Written 0 0% 1 100% 1 50% 0 0% 1 25% 3 38% 0 0% 0 0% Actions 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 1 25% 2 25% 1 50% 0 0% Yes 1 2% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% No 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 2 1% 1 1% 0 0% No Answer 50 98% 29 100% 105 99% 24 100% 153 99% 364 99% 124 99% 32 100% 10 Owner’s Race or Ethnicity 519 Owner’s Sex Yes 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 4 3% 5 12% 1 1% 0 0% No Answer 51 100% 29 100% 105 99% 24 100% 151 97% 36 88% 124 99% 32 100% Yes 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% No 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 2% 3 1% 1 1% 0 0% No Answer 51 100% 29 100% 106 100% 24 100% 152 98% 365 99% 123 98% 32 100% 519 Time in Business MGT of America, Inc. 519 Page 8-41 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-11 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ADOT DISCRIMINATION TELEPHONE SURVEY BY ETHNICITY African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Yes 1 2% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 2 1% 4 1% 2 2% 0 0% No 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% No Answer 50 98% 29 100% 105 99% 24 100% 151 97% 362 98% 123 98% 32 100% Yes 0 0% 1 3% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 2 1% 1 1% 0 0% No 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% No Answer 51 100% 28 97% 106 100% 24 100% 152 98% 364 99% 124 99% 32 100% Demographics Nonminority Women Total M/WBE Non-M/WBE No Response Total Respondents Before-Contract 519 After Contract Award 519 Discrimination occurrence by ADOT Verbal 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% Actions 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% Yes 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% No Answer 51 100% 29 100% 105 99% 24 100% 155 100% 367 100% 125 100% 32 100% 2 Owner’s Race or Ethnicity 519 Owner’s Sex Yes 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% No Answer 51 100% 29 100% 105 99% 24 100% 155 100% 367 100% 125 100% 32 100% 51 100% 29 100% 106 100% 24 100% 155 100% 367 100% 125 100% 32 100% 519 Time in Business MGT of America, Inc. 519 Page 8-42 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-11 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ADOT DISCRIMINATION TELEPHONE SURVEY BY ETHNICITY African American Demographics Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE Non-M/WBE No Response Total Respondents Before Contract Award Yes 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% No Answer 51 100% 29 100% 105 99% 24 100% 155 100% 367 100% 125 100% 32 100% Yes 0 0% 1 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% No Answer 51 100% 28 97% 106 100% 24 100% 155 100% 367 100% 125 100% 32 100% MGT of America, Inc. 519 519 Page 8-43 Anecdotal Analysis 8.7.2 Discrimination in the Private Sector: Survey Results Questions in this section are related to instances of discrimination in the Private Sector. Respondents were asked if they have experienced discriminatory behavior from the private sector in the past. African American firms answered yes to this question 47 percent of the time. In comparison, nonminority males answered yes only 14 percent of the time. All other ethnic groups answered yes between 28 and 32 percent of the time. Exhibit 8-12 outlines the responses. MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-44 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-12 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISCRIMINATION IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR Asian Demographics African American American Have you experienced discriminatory behavior from the private sector in the past? Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE Non-M/WBE No Response Don‟t Know 3 6% 4 14% 11 10% 2 8% 12 8% 32 9% 4 3% 0 0% No 24 47% 17 59% 61 58% 14 58% 93 60% 212 58% 104 83% 28 88% Yes 24 47% 8 If yes, how was the discrimination expressed to you? 28% 34 32% 8 33% 50 32% 124 34% 17 14% 4 13% Verbal 6 29% 1 14% 15 50% 4 50% 26 58% 52 47% 12 75% 2 50% Written Action against company 0 0% 1 14% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 1 6% 0 0% 15 71% 5 71% 15 50% 4 50% 19 42% 58 52% 3 19% 2 50% Do you feel that the discrimination was due to: Owner‟s race or ethnicity 13 65% 5 71% 24 77% 6 75% 4 9% 52 47% 8 62% 1 33% Owner‟s sex 2 10% 0 0% 4 13% 1 13% 37 82% 44 40% 3 23% 1 33% Time in business 5 25% 2 29% 3 10% 1 13% 4 9% 15 14% 2 15% 1 33% When did the discrimination occur? During bidding process 10 36% After contract awarded 4 14% 2 29% 12 35% 5 63% 19 40% 48 40% 8 47% 1 25% 2 29% 9 26% 2 25% 6 13% 23 19% 4 24% 0 0% No Answer 36% 3 43% 13 38% 1 13% 22 47% 49 41% 5 29% 3 75% 10 Total Respondents 519 131 127 141 What action did you take? Filed a complaint 3 13% 1 13% 5 15% 0 0% 2 4% 11 9% 2 12% 0 0% No action taken 21 88% 7 88% 29 85% 8 100% 45 96% 110 91% 15 88% 4 100% MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-45 142 Anecdotal Analysis 8.7.3 Results from the Focus Group, Interviews, and Public Hearings Most respondents did not believe that they had experienced discrimination directly from ADOT. Anecdotal responses to the discrimination question focused on other public agencies and the private sector, including ADOT contractors. Blatant comments were rare, but included incidents like the following:  The female owner of an engineering firm was told by a prime contractor on the Valley Metro light rail project that the task he‟d picked for her was “so simple a monkey could do it.” Other public officials (not ADOT) have spoken to her as though she is stupid when she called seeking work. They asked her whether she was a real estate agent; when she told them she is an engineer, they continued to talk down to her. When some private sector representatives called her firm, they asked to speak with one of her “guys;” then hung up when she told them that she could help them.  A representative of a Hispanic American owned construction firm inquired from a winning prime why his firm was not selected to subcontract on a job. The prime‟s representative asked the firm‟s representative what the surname of the owner was. When the surname was given, the prime responded, “That‟s the reason.” No action was taken by the potential subcontractor due to concern over retaliation.  A Native American professional services firm owner stated that she was approached by a group of non-minority women asking her to do some work for them. Her firm performed the work, but was never paid. The owner decided to take no action due to the high profile of the women in the municipality.  A woman-owned janitorial firm stated “it was absolutely discrimination and he let me know in so many words that that was – you know, that‟s the way that we do it: “We have chosen who we are going to use and we don‟t care that you wanted it.” “Can you tell me any specific thing that kept us from getting this? We obviously want it, and we have everything filled out appropriately. Is there something that is not appropriate in the bid?” “No, we just want to choose someone else.” So I feel that we have been discriminated against, roughly discriminated against in that particular instance.” In only one case was a formal complaint filed, by a Hispanic American owned construction firm over discrimination from the private sector. The firm‟s representative did not elaborate on the discrimination incident, but stated that the perceived reason was the owner‟s race/ethnicity. The one nonminority male-owned firm interviewed did not perceive a reverse discrimination scenario based on DBE certification of other firms. That firm had previously participated in the DBE program as a nonminority woman-owned business before a recent change in ownership.  At one public hearing, a minority vendor stated: “I can tell you about a discussion I witnessed as a sub, but it didn‟t particularly affect my firm, but this was a woman-owned firm, who at this point in time, was doing some curb and gutter work on an ADOT project and there were some issues, and from a MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-46 Anecdotal Analysis quality control perspective because my firm was doing the testing, there were no issues of quality or performance on the part of the woman-owned business, but there was some other issues that I don‟t remember what the issue was, but the general contractor made a comment to the ADOT representative, “Well, that‟s your minority business community, but you‟re telling us we‟ve got to use them,” which I thought was very inappropriate at that meeting. So yeah, I have heard, that‟s the one that comes to mind on a direct basis. There is no race-neutral. If there were, we wouldn‟t be here today. If people were doing business with each other in the community like it should be, we wouldn‟t be here talking.”  At a public hearing, a minority professional services vendor stated that: “As I went through the specifications, they specifically stated that there would be no MBE, MB-nothing. Nothing would be considered. So for a person like myself and others, we take that as, “Go away. Don‟t even apply. Why are you here? We are not going to give you any consideration whatsoever.” So what I did, instead of responding to it, I sent a letter of protest saying I‟m not going to respond because of these specific reasons. That was last year in January. They still haven‟t responded to me. They didn‟t say I can‟t, we got your letter -nothing.”  A minority vendor at the Tucson public hearing stated that, “…we have to really fight in the private sector to get some business and stay profitable in the company.” 8.7.4 Informal Networks: Survey Results Questions in this section addressed informal networks in Arizona as well as exclusion from this network.  When respondents were asked if they felt there was an informal network of prime and subcontractors that have excluded their company from doing business on state of Arizona private sector commercial projects, 65 percent of Non-M/WBE firms said they either disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement followed by nonminority women (52 percent) and Native Americans (51 percent). In comparison, 34 percent of the African American firms responded that they either strongly agree or agree with this statement, and 26 percent of Hispanic American firms also answered strongly agree or agree.  Comparatively, when asked the question, “Is there an Informal Network of prime and subcontractors in Arizona?” the incidence of either strongly agreeing or agreeing was much higher. African Americans and nonminority women answered strongly agree or agree (63 percent) and (61 percent) respectively, followed by Hispanic Americans (59 percent), Native Americans (54 percent), non-M/WBE at (46 percent), and Asian Americans (45 percent).  When asked if exclusion from this network has kept their company from bidding or has interfered with their ability to contract in the public/private sector, 49 percent of the African American respondents to this question either strongly agreed or agreed with this question. All other respondents were in the MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-47 Anecdotal Analysis mid 30 percent range with the exception of non-M/WBE firms that answered strongly agree or agree 21 percent of the time. Exhibit 8-13 summarizes the responses. MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-48 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-13 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY INFORMAL NETWORKS African Asian Demographics American American There is an informal network of prime and subcontractors that has excluded my company from doing business on State of Arizona private sector commercial projects Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE 1 Strongly Agree 8 16% 2 7% 12 11% 2 8% 5 3% 29 8% 8 6% 1 3% 2 Agree 3 Neither Agree or Disagree 9 18% 4 14% 16 15% 3 13% 23 15% 56 15% 8 6% 1 3% 2 4% 3 10% 7 7% 0 0% 10 6% 22 6% 6 5% 1 3% 4 Disagree 16 31% 12 41% Non-M/WBE No Response 39 37% 9 38% 60 39% 137 37% 66 53% 14 44% 5 Strongly Disagree 2 4% 2 9 No Answer/Don‟t Know 14 27% 6 There is an informal network of prime and subcontractors in Arizona 7% 10 9% 3 13% 20 13% 37 10% 15 12% 7 22% 21% 22 21% 7 29% 37 24% 87 24% 22 18% 8 25% 1 Strongly Agree 12 24% 5 17% 21 20% 5 21% 26 17% 69 19% 15 12% 2 6% 2 Agree 3 Neither Agree or Disagree 20 39% 8 28% 41 39% 8 33% 64 41% 143 39% 43 34% 12 38% 3 6% 3 10% 5 5% 0 0% 8 5% 19 5% 4 3% 3 9% 4 Disagree 2 4% 4 14% 10 9% 3 13% 13 8% 32 9% 26 21% 6 19% 5 Strongly Disagree 0% 2 7% 9 No Answer/Don‟t Know 14 27% 7 24% From July 1, 2002 to the present our company experienced discrimination due to the race, ethnicity, or gender of our company’s owners? 5 5% 1 4% 5 3% 13 4% 7 6% 3 9% 24 23% 7 29% 39 25% 92 25% 30 24% 6 19% 1 Yes very often 5 10% 1 3% 4 4% 0 0% 5 3% 15 4% 2 2% 0 0% 2 Yes, sometimes 11 22% 4 14% 18 17% 5 21% 16 10% 54 15% 5 4% 0 0% 3 Yes, but seldom 3 6% 3 10% 7 7% 1 4% 11 7% 26 7% 4 3% 1 3% 4 Never 22 43% 19 66% 53 50% 13 54% 108 70% 217 59% 103 82% 27 84% 9 No response 10 20% 2 7% 24 23% 5 21% 15 10% 56 15% 11 9% 4 13% MGT of America, Inc. Total Respondents 519 519 519 Page 8-49 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-13 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY INFORMAL NETWORKS African Asian Hispanic Demographics American American American Exclusion from this network has kept my company from bidding or has interfered with our ability to contract in the public (government) or private sector. Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE 1 Strongly Agree 7 14% 4 14% 12 11% 2 8% 15 10% 40 11% 5 4% 0 0% 2 Agree 3 Neither Agree or Disagree 18 35% 6 21% 25 24% 0 0% 32 21% 82 22% 17 14% 5 0% 4 8% 2 7% 4 4% 0 0% 7 5% 17 5% 6 5% 0 16% 4 Disagree 14 27% 10 34% 36 34% 12 50% 54 35% 127 35% 56 45% 16 0% 5 Strongly Disagree 0% 1 3% 6 6% 9 No Answer/Don‟t Know 8 16% 6 21% 23 22% Although exclusion from this informal network adversely affects a majority of small businesses, the adverse impact is probably felt the greatest among women and minority owned business. 2 8% 9 6% 18 5% 13 10% 4 50% 8 33% 38 25% 84 23% 28 22% 7 13% 1 Strongly Agree 10 20% 5 17% 9 8% 2 8% 16 10% 42 11% 3 2% 0 0% 2 Agree 3 Neither Agree or Disagree 27 53% 7 24% 32 30% 4 17% 39 25% 109 30% 12 10% 1 3% 2 4% 3 10% 10 9% 1 4% 17 11% 34 9% 10 8% 4 13% 4 Disagree 3 6% 6 21% 23 Non-M/WBE No Response 22% 7 29% 30 19% 71 19% 46 37% 12 38% 5 Strongly Disagree 0 0% 1 3% 3 3% 9 No Answer/Don‟t Know 9 18% 7 24% 29 27% Double standards in qualifications and performance make it more difficult for minority and women owned businesses to win bids and contracts. (Q38) 3 13% 1 1% 8 2% 10 8% 5 16% 7 29% 52 34% 104 28% 44 35% 10 31% 1 Strongly Agree 10 20% 5 17% 9 8% 3 13% 11 7% 38 10% 1 1% 1 3% 2 Agree 3 Neither Agree or Disagree 16 31% 5 17% 35 33% 6 25% 40 26% 103 28% 12 10% 2 6% 7 14% 3 10% 6 6% 1 4% 23 15% 40 11% 7 6% 4 13% 4 Disagree 10 20% 12 41% 29 27% 8 33% 47 30% 108 29% 55 44% 13 41% 5 Strongly Disagree 9 No Answer/Don‟t Know 1 2% 2 7% 13 12% 2 8% 12 8% 30 8% 16 13% 6 19% 7 14% 2 7% 14 13% 4 17% 22 14% 49 13% 34 27% 6 19% MGT of America, Inc. Total Respondents 519 519 519 Page 8-50 Anecdotal Analysis EXHIBIT 8-13 (Continued) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE SURVEY INFORMAL NETWORKS Non Minority Women Total M/WBE Non M/WBE (non minority males) African Asian Demographics American American Sometimes, a prime contractor will include a minority or woman subcontractor Hispanic American Native American No Response 1 Strongly Agree 9 18% 2 7% 10 9% 3 13% 20 13% 45 12% 6 5% 3 9% 2 Agree 3 Neither Agree or Disagree 19 37% 8 28% 23 22% 8 33% 28 18% 87 24% 10 8% 1 3% 2 4% 2 7% 7 7% 1 4% 22 14% 34 9% 9 7% 4 13% 4 Disagree 5 10% 6 21% 25 24% 1 4% 27 17% 64 17% 28 22% 8 25% 5 Strongly Disagree 0 0% 9 No Answer/Don‟t Know 16 31% Women owned businesses as viewed by the general public 1 3% 12 11% 4 17% 7 5% 24 7% 16 13% 6 19% 10 34% 29 27% 7 29% 51 33% 114 31% 56 45% 10 31% 1 Strongly Agree 15 29% 3 10% 16 15% 2 8% 15 10% 51 14% 4 3% 1 3% 2 Agree 3 Neither Agree or Disagree 24 47% 11 38% 40 38% 12 50% 56 36% 144 39% 24 19% 3 9% 2 4% 5 17% 7 7% 1 4% 12 8% 28 8% 7 6% 3 9% 4 Disagree 6 12% 8 28% 24 23% 4 17% 40 26% 83 23% 49 39% 16 50% 5 Strongly Disagree 9 No Answer/Don‟t Know 1 2% 1 3% 10 9% 1 4% 13 8% 26 7% 17 14% 7 22% 3 6% 1 3% 9 8% 4 17% 19 12% 36 10% 24 19% 2 6% Total Respondents 519 519 Change bidding procedures 1 Strongly Agree 17 33% 4 14% 19 18% 5 21% 29 19% 74 20% 11 9% 2 6% 2 Agree 3 Neither Agree or Disagree 15 29% 10 34% 36 34% 8 33% 35 23% 105 29% 38 30% 6 19% 2 4% 3 10% 5 5% 0 0% 8 5% 19 5% 7 6% 4 13% 4 Disagree 4 8% 3 10% 12 11% 3 13% 15 10% 37 10% 18 14% 8 25% 0% 1 3% 4 4% 0 0% 2 1% 7 2% 5 4% 1 3% 25% 8 28% 30 28% 8 33% 66 43% 126 34% 46 37% 11 34% 5 Strongly Disagree 9 No Answer/Don‟t Know MGT of America, Inc. 13 519 Page 8-51 Anecdotal Analysis 8.8 DBE Program 8.8.1 Results from the Focus Group, Interviews, and Public Hearings Of the 50 firms interviewed, 26, or 52 percent, believed that prime contractors and consultants would not use minority and woman-owned firms if they were not required to. Of the 32 percent who believed that DBE firms would be used by prime contractors in absence of a requirement, several stated that the firms would be used less.  A representative of an M/W/DBE firm who did not believe that primes would use minority and woman-owned business if not required to noted that the primes who have contacted his firm in the past are the ones who take DBE goals seriously.  An M/W/DBE professional services firm owner argued that while DBE firms can perform in excess of the previous goal requirement of work as a subcontractor, primes typically allot only the DBE quota to such firms, and no more. Had they seen a firm and not a goal, she argued, they would have given more work to the minority- or woman-owned firm. The fact that the firm received any work at all was due to the goal.  A representative of an M/W/DBE-owned computer firm believed that in the computer industry, quality of work is the prime criterion upon which decisions are made. He believed that minority- and woman-owned firms would continue to receive work in the absence of DBE goals.  A Native American owner of a promotional products firm said that some primes would use minority- and woman-owned businesses in the absence of goals; most would not.  A Native American owner of a construction firm stated that primes would not use minority or woman-owned businesses if there were no DBE goals unless the firm was already established and known. He also mentioned, elsewhere in the interview, that the DBE program had helped his firm gain visibility among primes to get the critical first opportunity. Since that time, he stated, his firm has succeeded based upon its reputation for quality work. He concluded that the DBE program was working the way it was supposed to.  At a public hearing, a minority engineering firm stated that: “My particular concern at this point, besides the low percentages that ADOT general contractors normally do, I can take you back to years when they were only doing 2, 2.5 percent, and we have large meetings and disagreements and arguments trying to get it up to 6 percent with the City of Phoenix and saw that other agencies, utilizing the same contractors, were going to 11, 12, 13 percent utilization, and yet, the ADOT contractors were down below 5.”  At a public hearing a minority vendor stated that: “I have received invitations to bid and following up with those invitations, I took the opportunity to visit a contractor and said, “Okay, I got this invitation on this project that you‟re doing. Okay, what is it that you do?” “We do concrete, but we do our own concrete.” MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-52 Anecdotal Analysis “Good. “So I‟m saying if you do your own concrete and you‟re sending me this invitation, why am I getting it, or do you not ever have the opportunity to outsource some of that work, even though you do the concrete work because I do work for other firms that do the same thing we do that, you know, I have the opportunity there. Basically, the individual that I talked to said my opportunities there were limited to none, and I find it disturbing that contractors would send out invitations to minority firms saying that they are soliciting for the sake of the goal, okay, which, again, going back to what [the previous speaker] said is way low.”  One minority vendor at the Tucson hearing noted with regard to the ending of goals “It‟s ironic that just in the last year and a half or two years that we have not had a single ADOT project since the goals were taken away from the state because of the lawsuit in Washington State -- and I can understand that -- but to have some of the experiences that we‟ve had in the last --just in the last year has great testimonies to what I have to say about it. One of them has to do with the ADOT project on I-10. I-10, the one here in Tucson. On that particular project, there was three bidders, general contractor that were bidding on it. And we gave two of the general contractors a bid 1 of $12,600,000. We gave another contractor a bid of $500,000 or $12 million, which we gave him a break of $600,000 on that project. We found that, after the fact, that the subcontractor that was second lowest bidder, his bid was $14 million compared to our $12,600,000. Well, 10 and behold, ten minutes before bid time, the one contractor that we gave the price of $12,600,000 said that ten minutes before bid time, they got a bid for $12,500,000. The third bidder that we gave that $12 million price to, they didn‟t put the number out. So they would have used us if they would have been the low bidder. So that just goes to show you that there‟s a lot of that going on. Because we are a minority, I believe that‟s what it was. As you can see, that‟s exactly what happened because the general contractor told us -- the one that had the $12 million bid from us -- didn‟t get a last minute Another project that was just here recently, that‟s the one over here on Oracle Road, the three other contractors that we bid, besides the low bidder, they told us we were the low bidders, but when they awarded the project, the general contractor told us we weren‟t low.”  Another Asian American-owned professional services firm commented at the public hearing that, “ADOT used to have professional services, and again the point having the DBE doing 10 percent of the work with the Prime, and we have received a few subcontracts as a DBE sub, but since the last two year, I believe, or maybe three, that DBE point has been canceled. So there‟s no DB program, as far as I know, at ADOT. And that has hurt us for getting any subcontracting work with ADOT. When we talked to the Prime, they said they don‟t need for DBE anymore, so we can do whatever we want to do. So that has affected our business.” MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-53 Anecdotal Analysis Other Survey Comments At the completion of the survey, interviewees were asked if they had any additional comments or if there was something that they felt were not covered. Two hundred and one interviewees responded to that question. Below is a sampling of some of the responses.  A representative from a Hispanic American firm stated, “I bid like crazy. No one ever hires us. Very discouraging.”  A representative from a Hispanic American firm stated, “Requirements for DBE‟s since early 2005 has dramatically dropped. Having no requirement means less or no work for DBE‟s since the new law was passed.”  A representative from a Hispanic American firm stated, “I have not gotten notifications of bids from ADOT. How can we know more about the bids and opportunities? Is there a class we can attend?”  A representative from a nonminority firm stated, “If ADOT is really trying to get minorities involved, they must be more aggressive in pursuing advertising to the small businesses.”  A representative from a Hispanic American firm stated, “Working hard is the way to success. Having a minority last name is a little difficult, but if hard work is provided then I will succeed.”  A representative from a nonminority firm stated, “There is no advantage to being a woman owned or not! Do good jobs and get good jobs.”  A representative from a nonminority firm stated, “ADOT has a great certification program. They have helped my company grow as a whole.”  A representative from a Hispanic American firm stated, “If you took my name and my color away, my 20 years experience and Masters Degree would probably shine.”  A representative from a nonminority firm stated, “From the sound of these questions someone does not understand that just because you are a DBE does not mean that you are qualified. There is a need for an extensive amount of experience before you should be allowed to do the work the State is requiring us to hire DBE‟s for.”  A representative from an Asian American firm stated, “I feel all opportunities are pretty much fair. Sometimes I will get a job because I am a DBE, sometimes I won‟t.”  A representative from an African American firm stated, “Big companies don‟t give us the work and when they finally do, they try to break you. Sometimes they don‟t pay on time and other things. They don‟t do right by the minorities.” MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-54 Anecdotal Analysis 8.9  A representative from a Native American firm stated, “ADOT needs to give out more contracts.”  A representative from an African American firm stated, “I see ADOT being the most active in the certification help. They give more opportunities to us and they connect well.”  A representative from a nonminority firm stated, “I think the process should be unbundled. Small businesses have no opportunities. More information should be available.”  A representative from a nonminority firm stated, “It is difficult doing work with ADOT. Timing and responses are very poor. They change their decisions after already agreed with it. I have not had a great experience doing business with ADOT.”  A representative from a Native American firm stated, “It‟s hard to break into the good old boy system that has been established in Arizona.”  A representative from a Hispanic American firm stated, “I think that getting in the front door is a big barrier. I‟ve been working with minority firms for more than 20 years and we have come a long way, but discrimination still exists and requirements should be in play.”  A representative from a nonminority firm stated, “Love working with ADOT.”  A representative from an African American firm stated, “More business networks need to be performed and utilized.”  A representative from a nonminority firm stated, “I feel that minorities don‟t get a fair shot on job opportunities.”  A representative from a Hispanic American firm stated, “Make it easier for people to sign up to be a vendor for ADOT. It can be a headache. Not all minorities understand what to do to become a vendor. Maybe ADOT should hold a class in the language of the minority.”  A representative from a nonminority firm stated, “If you do good work, you get good jobs.” Conclusions There is not a large number of specific incidents of discrimination by ADOT reported in the anecdotal testimony. While this chapter reports negative comments, most vendors did want the DBE program to stay in place. Most M/WBE vendors were skeptical of their ability to secure subcontracting work in the absence of programmatic incentives. There was greater concern about discrimination in the private sector than from ADOT. MGT of America, Inc. Page 8-55 9.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In July 2007, MGT of America, Inc. (MGT), was retained to conduct a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Disparity Study for the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). The study consisted of fact-finding to determine whether existing ADOT efforts had eliminated active and passive discrimination; analysis of ADOT procurement trends and practices for the study period from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007, in the relevant market of the state of Arizona; and evaluation of various options for future program development. The purpose of this study is to determine if there are disparities in procurement related to the race, ethnicity, or gender of businesses utilized by ADOT—and if any disparities were found, to present evidence on various factors that might account for them. The results of this study and conclusions drawn are presented in detail in Chapters 2.0 through 8.0 of this report. The study reported utilization and availability data for certified DBEs and minority and women business enterprises (M/WBEs) that were not certified DBEs. MGT found that M/WBEs as a whole were substantially underutilized as prime contractors in construction, architecture & engineering, professional services, other services, and goods and supplies. African American-, Hispanic American-, and Asian American-owned firms were under-utilized as construction subcontractors. The following sections summarize each of the study‟s findings, which are followed by related major recommendations. Commendations are also noted in those instances in which ADOT already has procedures, programs, and policies in place that respond to findings. Selected best practices are presented at the end of this chapter. These best practices expand on recommendations indicated with an asterisk (*). 9.1 Findings and Recommendations for Prime Contracting Findings for Prime Contracting FINDING 9-1: DBE Prime Utilization and Availability The dollar value of M/WBE prime utilization in the relevant market by ADOT is shown in Exhibit 9-1. Over the current study period (July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2007) in the relevant market, the following took place:  Seven M/WBEs won 27 prime construction contracts for $31.3 million on ADOT projects (1.28 percent of the total).  Eighteen M/WBEs won 65 prime architecture and engineering (A&E) contracts for $36.5 million on ADOT projects (14.15 percent of the total).  Fourteen M/WBEs won 16 prime professional services contracts for $4.3 million on ADOT projects (7.62 percent of the total). MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-1 Findings and Recommendations  Two M/WBEs won 6 other services contracts for $913,199 on ADOT projects (2.80 percent of the total).  Three M/WBEs won 3 goods and supplies contracts for $1.08 million on ADOT projects (1.96 percent of the total). EXHIBIT 9-1 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY OF UTILIZATION BY BUSINESS CATEGORY African American $0 Hispanic American $0 Asian American $0 Native American $0 Nonminority Women $31,326,519 Total M/WBE Architecture and Engineering Primes $250,000 $7,684,706 $26,892,496 $993,540 $742,999 $36,563,741 Professional Services $41,967 $2,329,938 $42,156 $0 $1,915,487 $4,329,548.00 Other Services $0 $44,166 $0 $0 $869,033 $913,199.00 Goods and Supplies Vendors $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,082,433 $1,082,433 Business Category Construction Prime Contractors $31,326,519 Source: Chapter 4.0, Analysis Results. EXHIBIT 9-2 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PERCENTAGE UTILIZATION BY BUSINESS CATEGORY Business Category Construction Prime Contractors African American 0% Hispanic American 0% Asian American 0% Native American 0% Nonminority Women 1.28% Total M/WBE 1.28% Architecture and Engineering Primes .10% 2.97% 10.41% .38% .29% 14.15% Professional Services .07% 4.10% .07% 0% 3.37% 7.61% Other Services 0% .14% 0% 0% 2.67% 2.81% Goods and Supplies Vendors 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.96% 1.96% Source: Chapter 4.0, Analysis Results. M/WBEs constituted between 7 and 23.5 percent of bidders and vendors, depending on the procurement category. M/WBE prime bidder and vendor availability is shown in Exhibit 9-3. MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-2 Findings and Recommendations EXHIBIT 9-3 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY OF MINORITY AVAILABILITY BY BUSINESS CATEGORY African American .45% Hispanic American 4.73% Asian American .19% Native American .77% Nonminority Women 4.41% Total M/WBE 10.55% Architecture and Engineering Primes Vendors 1.46% 4.85% 6.55% 1.46% 9.22% 23.54% Professional Services Vendors 1.90% 2.22% 1.27% .63% 7.30% 13.32% Other Services Vendors 1.90% 3.79% .95% .47% 8.06% 15.17% Goods and Supplies Vendors .37% 2.60% .37% 1.12% 2.60% 7.06% Business Category Construction Prime Bidders Source: Chapter 4.0, Analysis Results. FINDING 9-2: Disparity in M/WBE Prime Utilization As shown in Exhibit 9-4, substantial disparity for prime contracting existed for the following underutilized M/WBE groups: EXHIBIT 9-4 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY OF M/WBE UNDERUTILIZATION JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Business Category Construction Primes Architecture and Engineering Primes Professional Services Other Services Goods and Supplies African American Yes Yes Hispanic American Yes Yes Asian American Yes No Native American Yes Yes Nonminority Women Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Source: Chapter 5.0, Analysis Results. FINDING 9-3: Anecdotal Comments Of the M/WBE respondents who responded to our questions about barriers to doing business, key issues noted were as follows:      Size of contracts (23 percent). Limited information received on pending projects (28 percent). Time allotted to prepare bids and quotes (23 percent). Expenses associated with bid preparation (24 percent). Pre-qualification requirements (17 percent). The areas where there was the biggest gap in the percentage of M/WBEs expressing concern and non-M/WBEs, was limited information received on pending projects (10 percent difference), performance bond requirements (12 percent difference), bid bond MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-3 Findings and Recommendations requirements (9 percent difference) and financing (10 percent difference). Few firms attributed their negative experiences to discrimination by ADOT. 9.2 Findings for Subcontracting FINDING 9-4: M/WBE Subcontractor Utilization and Availability The dollar value of M/WBE subcontractor utilization on federally subsidized contracts in the relevant market by ADOT is shown in Exhibit 9-5. Data on A&E subcontracting was limited. Over the current study period in the relevant market, the following took place:  One hundred and five M/WBE construction subcontractors won 1,236 construction subcontracts for $191.6 million on ADOT projects (23.9 percent of the total). Certified DBEs averaged 8.34 percent of construction subcontracts on federally subsidized projects.  Six M/WBEs won 9 A&E subcontracts for $1.1 million on ADOT projects (44.9 percent of total A&E subcontracts). EXHIBIT 9-5 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY OF UTILIZATION BY BUSINESS CATEGORY African American Hispanic American Asian American Native American Nonminority Women Total M/WBE $237,160 $37,349,960 $2,243.00 $53,645,00 $100,422,258 $138,065,2679 .03% 4.66% 0% 6.69% 12.52% 23.90% Architecture and Engineering Subconsultants $0 $337,916 $531,443 $170,410 $74,114 $1,113,883 Percent 0% 13.48% 21.20% 6.80% 2.96% 44.44% Business Category Construction Subcontractors Percent Source: Chapter 4.0, Analysis Results. M/WBEs constituted 15.6 percent of construction subcontractors and 27 percent of A&E subcontractors. M/WBE subcontractor vendor availability is shown in Exhibit 9-6 below. MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-4 Findings and Recommendations EXHIBIT 9-6 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY OF MINORITY AVAILABILITY BY BUSINESS CATEGORY Business Category Construction Primes and Subs Architecture and Engineering Primes and Subs African American .38% Hispanic American 6.27% Asian American .13% Native American 1.15% Nonminority Women 7.68% Total M/WBE 15.61% 1.53% 6.47% 6.64% 1.53% 10.90% 27.07% Source: Chapter 4.0, Analysis Results. FINDING 9-5: Disparity in M/WBE Subcontractor Utilization As shown in Exhibit 9-7, substantial disparity for subcontracting existed for the following underutilized M/WBE groups: EXHIBIT 9-7 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY OF M/WBE UNDERUTILIZATION JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 Business Category Construction Subcontractors Architecture and Engineering Subconsultants African American Yes Yes Hispanic Asian Native Nonminority American American American Women Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Source: Chapter 5.0, Analysis Results. FINDING 9-6: Anecdotal Comments on Subcontracting Of the M/WBE respondents who responded to our questions about their subcontracting experience, key issues noted were as follows:     No response to bid/quote (42 percent). Pressured to lower bid/quote (31 percent). Did different and less work than specified in the contract (26 percent). Payment substantially delayed (38 percent). The areas where there was the biggest gap in the percentage of M/WBE expressing concern and non-M/WBEs was no response to bid/quote (34 percent difference) and held to a higher standard than other subcontractors (13 percent difference). MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-5 Findings and Recommendations Findings for Non-Goal and Private Sector Analysis FINDING 9-7: DBE Utilization on Non-Goal Projects ADOT does not place goals on state-funded projects and on certain federally-funded projects. Sixty-seven M/WBE construction subcontractors won $22.1 million, 18.49 percent of ADOT spending on state-funded projects over the study period. Sixty-three M/WBEs construction subcontractors won $49.4 million, 26 percent of ADOT spending on federally-funded projects without DBE goals over the study period. ADOT suspended the use of race conscious project goals in January 2006 following the Ninth Circuit decision in Western State Paving v Washington DOT. M/WBE subcontractor spending in percentage terms did fall significantly in 2007, the first year of the suspension of DBE project goals. M/WBE construction subcontractor spending averaged $33.2 million, 24.9 percent of total spending with subcontractors on federally subsidized projects, from 2002 through 2006.1 In the FY2007 M/WBE subcontractors won $25.5 million in subcontracts, 18.9 percent of total spending with subcontractors on federally subsidized projects. The biggest drop came for Native American-owned firms that fell from an average of 8.8 percent to about 0.1 percent in FY2007. Certified DBE construction subcontractor utilization on federally subsidized projects fell from an average of 9.49 percent on subcontracts in the relevant market to 2.06 percent in FY2007. FINDING 9-8: Disparities in Census Measures of Firm Sales and Availability Using data from the 2002 Survey of Business Owners, substantial disparities were found between the availability of construction and professional services firms owned by women and minorities with paid employees and their sales. For both construction and professional services firms, sales per firm for each ethnic/gender group were generally between 30 and 60 percent of the market place average. FINDING 9-9: Disparities in Self-Employment and Revenue Earnings In general, findings from the U.S. Bureau of the Census Public Use Micro Sample (PUMS) 2000 data for the state of Arizona indicated that there were statistically significant disparities in entry into and earnings from self-employment by women and minorities after controlling for education, age, wealth, and other variables. FINDING 9-10: Disparities in Loan Denials and Interest Rates Approval and denial rates on commercial loans in the survey sample between nonminority males and women and minorities were similar, but the number of respondents was very small. An econometric analysis of data in the 2003 National Survey of Small Business Finance (NSSBF) found a statistically significant positive relationship between the probability of loan denial and African American ownership. The 1 Based on Exhibit 4-10 in Chapter 4. MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-6 Findings and Recommendations data also found that African American-owned businesses pay approximately 30 percent to 150 percent (average interest rate charged on approved loan is about 4.5 percent) more in interest than non-African American-owned firms. FINDING 9-11: Regression Analysis on Firm Revenue and Capacity When controlling for the effects of variables related to company demographics (company capacity, ownership level of education, and experience) in a survey of vendors, ethnic/gender status had a negative effect on 2007 company earnings of all minority groups, except Native Americans and Asian Americans. FINDING 9-12: Anecdotal Comments on the Private Sector Survey respondents reported some discriminatory behavior in the private sector. African American firms answered yes to this question 47 percent of the time. In comparison, nonminority males answered yes only 14 percent of the time. All other Ethnic groups answered yes between 28 and 32 percent of the time. When asked if exclusion from an informal network has kept their company from bidding or has interfered with their ability to contract in the public/private sector, 49 percent of the African American respondents to this question either strongly agreed or agreed with this question. All other M/WBE respondents were in the mid 30 percent range. 9.3 Findings for Race-Neutral Alternatives FINDING 9-13: Commercial Antidiscrimination Rules Arizona state law does not contain an express commercial nondiscrimination provision that forbids discrimination in subcontracting. The state of Arizona does have legal provisions covering nondiscrimination in employment by contractors and subcontractors on state projects.2 FINDING 9-14: Business Development Assistance ADOT has conducted supportive services internally since 2003. ADOT has partnered with over a dozen development assistance organizations in the state. ADOT is currently working on a mentor-protégé program. FINDING 9-15: Access to Capital, Bonding, and Insurance* ADOT does not currently have any initiatives covering access to capital, bonding and insurance. There are several financing and bonding assistance programs established by the state and in the Phoenix area. 2 Executive Order 99-4 amending Executive Order 75-5. MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-7 Findings and Recommendations FINDING 9-16: Small Contractors Program There is no small contractors program at ADOT. The state of Arizona has a small business set aside insofar as state law restricts, where practicable, procurements of less than $50,000 to small businesses.3 9.4 DBE Program Findings FINDING 9-17: DBE Goal Setting The FFY 2003 ADOT DBE goal was 9 percent, with 2.5 percent being race-neutral. The DBE goal was based on ADOT contractor lists. The FFY 2009 ADOT DBE was 7.38 percent, and was entirely race-neutral. The ADOT DBE program has been a subcontractor goals program, with no race-conscious set-asides, bid preferences, or mandatory joint ventures for DBE prime contractors during the study period. FINDING 9-18: DBE Program Data ADOT is currently implementing B2G tracking system. The B2G implementation will allow the FAST system to communicate with the ECS system in real time. The ADOT system does not track DBE professional services subcontractor utilization. In general, the tracking and organization of data on engineering services is less centralized and organized than the construction data. FINDING 9-19: Performance Measures At present, ADOT provides tracking of DBE certification and DBE utilization. FINDING 9-20: DBE Program Web Site The ADOT Web site contains information on the Prime matchmaking, a DBE newsletter, calendar, supportive services, as well as links to certification forms and extensive ADOT contracting information. FINDINGS 9-21: DBE Program Oversight ADOT does not currently have Small Business or DBE Advisory Council, but ADOT has had informal meetings with the Associated General Contractors (AGC) on goal setting. 3 Arizona Revised Statutes § 41-2535. APC R2-7-335. MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-8 Findings and Recommendations 9.5 Recommendations Recommendations for Prime Contracting RECOMMENDATION 9-1: Small Contractors Program for Prime Contracts* ADOT should consider establishing a small contractors program. A strong small business program is central to maintaining a narrowly tailored program to promote DBE utilization. Guidance on small business programs can be found in features of other small business programs around the United States, including:         Setting aside contracts up to $500,000 for small business. Modifying prequalification requirements for small contracts. Lowering bid bonds to a specific amount, rather than a percentage. Providing bid preferences to small businesses in bidding on contracts. Setting small businesses goals on formal and informal contracts. Setting department goals for small businesses. Access to low cost insurance on small contracts. Making small businesses utilization a part of department performance review. RECOMMENDATION 9-2: Bidder Rotation for Professional Services and Other Services Some political jurisdictions use bidder rotation schemes to limit habit purchases from majority firms and to ensure that M/WBEs have an opportunity to bid along with majority firms. The city of Atlanta, Georgia, and Miami-Dade County, Florida, have had particular success with rotating diverse teams of A&E firms. ADOT should review procurement categories where bidder rotation may increase M/WBE prime utilization and does not conflict with state procurement statutes. RECOMMENDATION 9-3: Performance Reviews ADOT should require employees with procurement authority to be evaluated on their DBE utilization as part of their performance review. ADOT should also ensure that all personnel with purchasing power are fully trained concerning ADOT‟s DBE program and that they conform with the program requirements when they solicit bids and make purchases. Recommendations for Race-Neutral Alternatives RECOMMENDATION 9-4: Commercial Antidiscrimination Rules Some courts have noted that establishing anti-discrimination rules is an important component of race-neutral alternatives.4 Features of antidiscrimination policy selected from other entities include:  4 Submission of a business utilization report on DBE subcontractor utilization. Engineering Contractors v. Dade County, 943 F.Supp. 1546 (SD Fla 1996). MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-9 Findings and Recommendations  Review of the business utilization report for evidence of discrimination.  A mechanism whereby complaints may be filed against firms that have discriminated in the marketplace.  Due process, in terms of an investigation by agency staff.  A hearing process before an independent hearing examiner;  An appeals process to the agency manager and ultimately to a court.  Imposition of sanctions, including: Disqualification from bidding with the agency for up to five years. Termination of all existing contracts. Referral for prosecution for fraud. RECOMMENDATION 9-5: Access to Capital and Bonding Examples of lending assistance programs include linked deposit programs* and collateral enhancement programs.* Agencies use linked deposit programs to subsidize lower rates for business and housing loans by accepting a lower rate on their deposits with participating financial institutions. Under a collateral enhancement program, ADOT would not loan funds directly to businesses, but instead would place a collateral reserve account at a bank. The business would then be required to secure financing from a lending institution, which could be conditioned on receipt of additional collateral supplied by the collateral enhancement program. ADOT should also consider increasing the assistance it provides to contractors with bonding. COMMENDATION and RECOMMENDATION 9-6: Supportive Services ADOT should be commended for its extensive business development partnerships as well as its team of consultants assisting with bidding and estimating. ADOT should follow the example of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, for which management and technical assistance contracts have been structured to include incentives for producing results, such as the number of DBEs being registered as qualified vendors with ADOT, increasing African American subcontractor utilization and increasing the number of DBEs graduating from subcontract work to prime contracting. COMMENDATION and RECOMMENDATION 9-7: Mentor-Protégé Program* ADOT should be commended for having a modest mentor-protégé-program. The ADOT DBE program has generated several successful DBE subcontractors, some of which have graduated to undertaking prime projects. ADOT should consider a DBE mentorprotégé program where DBEs serve as mentors for other DBE subcontractors. Such an approach has been tried with some success in Florida. MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-10 Findings and Recommendations DBE Program Recommendations RECOMMENDATION 9-8: DBE Project Goal Setting The evidence supporting the immediate restoration of race- and gender conscious DBE project goals in construction is mixed. There was still disparity for certain groups of minority construction subcontractors during the study period. Since the suspension of DBE goals, there has been a decline in M/W/DBE construction subcontractor utilization. Moreover, there is presented in Chapter 7.0, considerable statistical and anecdotal evidence of barriers in the private sector markets associated with race and gender after controlling for capacity variables. However, there was also evidence during the study period of utilization of M/W/DBEs on state-funded contracts and federally-funded construction projects without DBE goals. A summary of the relevant disparity evidence follows as an appendix at the end of this chapter. ADOT should closely monitor DBE construction subcontractor utilization. ADOT should consider selectively placing race-conscious goals on projects, particularly large projects where there is demonstrated availability. On construction projects that are procured through a request for proposal (RFP) process and are not purely low bid, ADOT should request bidders‟ history in contracting with DBEs. This study recommends a DBE goal of 8.0 percent with 4.9 percent being achieved through race neutral means and 3.1 percent through race conscious means. This DBE goal covers construction and A&E. African American, Hispanic American and Asian American construction firms should be eligible for race conscious goals for construction projects. African American, Hispanic American, Native American, Asian American and Nonminority Women owned A&E firms should be eligible for race conscious goals for A&E. COMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDATION 9-9: DBE Program Data Management ADOT has reasonably complete data on DBE construction utilization. ADOT should be commended for updating its DBE tracking system. There should be improved collection and reporting of DBE subconsultant utilization on engineering services contracts. RECOMMENDATION 9-10: ADOT Web Site ADOT‟s DBE Web site is thin as compared to other M/W/DBE Web sites. A survey of agencies has found the following information on their M/W/DBE Web sites, which serves as a source of additional ideas for ADOT: information on the loan programs, directory of certified firms, DBE program description, small business enterprise (SBE) program description, comprehensive contracting guides, bid tabulations, status of certification applications, links to management and technical assistance providers, data on SBE and DBE utilization, annual M/W/DBE program reports, direct links to on-line purchasing manuals, capacity, bonding, qualifications and experience data on certified firms, and 90-day forecasts of business opportunities. MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-11 Findings and Recommendations RECOMMENDATION 9-11: Performance Measures* ADOT should add performance measures other than DBE percentage utilization. Some suggested measures come from Florida DOT‟s Small Business Initiative. ADOT should develop additional measures to gauge the effectiveness of its efforts. Possible measures include: 9.6  Growth in the number of DBEs winning their first award from ADOT.  Growth in percentage of DBE utilization by ADOT.  Growth in DBE prime contracting.  Growth in DBE subcontractors to prime contractors.  Number of firms that receive bonding.  Number of firms that successfully graduate from the DBE program.  Number of graduated firms that successfully win ADOT projects.  Percentage of DBE utilization for contracts not subject to competitive bidding requirements.  Growth in the number of DBEs utilized by ADOT.  Number of joint ventures involving DBEs.  Largest contract won by a DBE. Selected Best Practices 9.6.1 Bidder Rotation A number of agencies, including the city of Indianapolis, Indiana, Fairfax County, Virginia, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Miami-Dade County, Florida, use bid rotation to encourage M/W/DBE utilization, particularly in A&E. Some examples of bidder rotation from other agencies include: Miami-Dade County, Florida. Miami-Dade County uses small purchase orders for the Community Business Enterprise program and rotates on that basis. In addition, MiamiDade County utilizes an Equitable Distribution Program, whereby a pool of qualified A&E professionals are rotated awards of county miscellaneous A&E services as prime contractors and subcontractors. DeKalb County, Georgia. DeKalb County has used a form of bidder rotation called a bidder box system to promote M/W/DBE utilization. This system selects a group of bidders from the list of county registered vendors to participate in open market procurements. Under the bidder rotation system, the buyer identifies the commodity or service by entering an item box number. Using this item box, the computer selects five to MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-12 Findings and Recommendations six firms. The lowest responsible bidder is awarded the contract. M/W/DBEs were afforded an increased number of bid opportunities than would ordinarily be the case with a sequential selection process. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has a Quick Bid rotation system for small contracts less than $500,000. In this program, the agency solicits bids via telephone and fax from a minimum of six contractors on a rotating basis. The period between bid, award, and contract start is generally not more than six weeks. Bidders are provided free construction documents with which to prepare their bids.5 9.6.2 DBE Project Goal Setting North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The NCDOT regulations emphasize that goals should be set on projects “determined appropriate by the Department [of Transportation].”6 Individual goals are set based on a project‟s geographic location, characteristics of the project, the percentage of that type of work that is typically performed by M/W/DBEs, the areas in which M/W/DBEs are known to provide services, and the goals set by the North Carolina General Assembly.7 The NCDOT M/W/DBEs regulations specify (although they do not limit to) particular areas for M/W/DBEs goals: clearing and grubbing, hauling and trucking, storm drainage, concrete and masonry construction, guardrail, landscaping, erosion control, reinforcing steel, utility construction, and pavement marking. The NCDOT goal setting process begins with an engineering estimate of the project to determine what items might reasonably be subcontracted out. Next estimates of the percentage of work that could be potentially performed by M/W/DBEs are developed.8 These estimates are confidential and made available only to the Estimator (and staff), the Provisions Engineer in the Proposals and Contracts Section (and staff), and members of the M/W/DBE Committee at the M/W/DBE Committee meetings. Next NCDOT looks at whether there are M/W/DBEs available based on the NCDOT M/W/DBE directory and the location of the project. The NCDOT directory is a searchable database that classifies firms by location, prime contractor/subcontractor status and sixdigit work type.9 The Goal Setting Committee is assisted in this process by Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Compliance staff in the Office of Civil Rights. Prime contractors then submit documentation of good faith efforts to achieve the individual project goal. A statement of how they will make efforts to achieve the goal satisfies the good faith effort requirements. The NCDOT Goal Setting Committee (in collaboration with the EEO Compliance staff) seeks to set goals relative to where there is interest, availability and capacity, beyond mere looking at the certification lists. NCDOT relies on the EEO Compliance staff to provide input on whether existing businesses are fully occupied. However, if EEO 5 Port Authority of NY & NJ, Engineering Department, 2002 Construction Program, at 9. 19A NCAC 02D.1108(a). 7 19A NCAC 02D.1108(a). 8 NCDOT, Division of Highways, Roadway Design and Design Services Unit, Policy and Procedure Manual, Chapter 10, at 4. 9 http://apps.dot.state.nc.us/constructionunit/directory/. 6 MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-13 Findings and Recommendations Compliance says M/W/DBEs are not fully occupied, but prime contractors submit evidence that M/W/DBEs are fully occupied (for example, with invoices), then NCDOT accepts those explanations. As part of goal setting goals NCDOT regulations provide that:  A documented excessive subcontractor bid constitutes a basis for not subcontracting with an M/W/DBE.  A documented record of poor experience constitutes a basis for not subcontracting with an M/W/DBE.10 In addition, a review of NCDOT M/W/DBE goals has been a regular topic at the AGCDOT Joint Cooperative Committee meetings.11 9.6.3 Small Business Programs Florida Department of Transportation (Florida DOT) Business Development Initiative. The Florida DOT has just undertaken a stepped up small business initiative with the following principal components:  Reserving certain construction, maintenance, and professional services contracts for small businesses.  Providing bid preference points to small businesses and to firms offering subcontracts to small businesses on professional services contracts.  Waiving performance and bid bond requirements for contracts under $250,000.  Using a modified pre-qualification process for certain construction and maintenance projects. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Small Business Program. Caltrans has a 25 percent small business goal. There is a Small Business Liaison for each Caltrans district. There is a Small Business Council that provides a venue for small business organizations to comment on Caltrans policies that impact contracting by small business. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Small Contracting Pilot Program. In August 2006, under its small business initiative, ODOT started a pilot program targeting small firms in region 1. The program sets aside contracts of less than $75,000 for competition amongst small firms. The program has targeted A&E firms thus far. Firms register for the program by responding to a request for quotations (RFQ) posted on the state purchasing site. When projects arise, a selection panel is formed. If there are nine or fewer firms registered in the discipline necessary for the project, all the firms are considered. If there 10 11 The last two elements are adopted by the NCDOT. 19A NCAC 02D.1110(7). AGC-DOT Joint Cooperative Committee Meeting Minutes, February 2001 through August 2003. MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-14 Findings and Recommendations are ten or more firms registered in the discipline, at least five firms are considered. Preference is given to firms without ODOT contracts. Consequently, firms that have a current contract with ODOT or have had a contract with ODOT in the last three years are not considered for that project. The short list is invited to informal interviews. Only one representative from a firm attends the interviews, and there are no formal presentation materials. The selection panel scores the responses to three to six questions. The firm with the highest point total is selected. Port of Portland Bid Preferences for Small Business. The Port of Portland found that a bid preference of 5 percent had no impact on contract outcomes, but a bid preference of 10 percent did impact contract outcomes. NCDOT Small Contractors Program. In the NCDOT program, small contractors are defined as firms with less than $1.5 million in revenue. There is a small contractor goal of $2 million for each of the 14 NCDOT divisions. The current cap on project size for small contractors is $500,000. For contracts of less than $500,000, NCDOT can solicit three informal bids from SBEs.12 North Carolina state law permits the waiving of bonds and licensing requirements on projects in the program. 9.6.4 Two-Tier Certification of Small Business State of Oregon. The state of Oregon has a two-tier system for small business certification. A tier one firm employs fewer than 20 full-time equivalent employees and has average annual gross receipts for the last three years that do not exceed $1.5 million for construction, or $600,000 for non-construction. A tier two firm employs fewer than 30 full-time equivalent employees and has average annual gross receipts for the last three years that do not exceed $3 million for construction, or $1 million for nonconstruction. 13 An emerging small business cannot be a subsidiary or a franchise. In 2006, small business program participation was extended from seven to 12 years.14 State of New Jersey. For the state of New Jersey, there are separate size standards for small businesses and emerging small businesses. For large projects, the state of New Jersey carves out portions of the contract for both tiers of small business. Thus, a single solicitation requires that the prime spend a certain percentage of the contract with small firms and another percentage with emerging small firms. Along related lines, the federal government sets aside contracts for bidding only amongst small firms, and other contracts may be set aside for bidding only by emerging small firms. 9.6.5 Collateral Enhancement Programs Phoenix, Arizona. Other agencies offer collateral enhancement. For example, since 1992 the city of Phoenix Expansion Assistance and Development (EXPAND) program has allowed businesses to secure financing from traditional lending institutions with collateral offered by EXPAND. EXPAND is not a substitute for conventional loans. The city does not loan funds directly to businesses, rather, it places a collateral reserve 12 NCGS § 136-28.10(a). OAR 445-050-0115. 14 OAR 445-050-0135. 13 MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-15 Findings and Recommendations account at a bank. The business is then required to secure financing from a lending institution, which may be conditioned on receipt of additional collateral supplied by EXPAND. EXPAND maintains a collateral reserve account, and offers businesses collateral enhancement, which is generally 25 percent of the loan amount (up to $150,000). EXPAND funds may be used for new construction, to purchase existing buildings (including land), to remodel an existing building, revolving lines of credit, for working capital, equipment and machinery, and leasehold improvements. In order to be eligible for the program, a business must be located within the city of Phoenix, owned by a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States, have a net worth of less than $7.5 million, and profits (after federal income tax) of less than $2.5 million (averaged over the last two-year period). It also must have at least two years of operating history and be a for-profit retail, manufacturing, wholesale, or service company. Priority is given to businesses in the city‟s redevelopment areas and for economic development projects. 9.6.6 Linked Deposit Programs New York. For example, a number of local agencies participate in the New York State Linked Deposit program. The program uses the leverage of public agency deposits to encourage participating banks to loan money to small, female and minority firms at favorable rates. The benefit to lenders is that they have a new loan product resulting from public agency deposits at a reduced rate. The Linked Deposit program makes loans of up to $10 million to certified S/M/WBEs that have been awarded Port Authority of New York and New Jersey contracts. The program provides two-year financing at reduced rates to small and minority businesses. Businesses in economic development zones, highly distressed areas, defense, and certified S/M/WBEs are eligible for a 3 percent interest rate reduction. Manufacturing businesses must have fewer than 500 employees, and service businesses must have fewer than 100 employees and not be dominant in their field of operation. The program started in 1993. 9.6.7 Bonding Programs NCDOT. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), through its supportive services contract, has funded a DBE Pilot Bonding Assistance Program since 2000. The bonding program is open to any DBE that holds or is in the process of obtaining a NCDOT contract. The program is for bid, payment, and performance bonds of up to $1 million. The program is administered through the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, the Minority Business Resource Center, and participating sureties. Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT). TDOT guarantees up to 90 percent of a surety bond of $250,000 or less.15 For a bond greater than $250,000, TDOT guarantee 90 percent of the first $250,000 and 80 percent of the next $250,000. Maryland. The state of Maryland, through its Surety Bonding Program, assists small contractors in bonding with government and public utility contracts that require bid, performance, and payment bonds. Maryland Small Business Development Financing Authority (MSBDFA) has the authority to directly issue, bid, performance, or payment 15 TN State Section 4-3-2305. MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-16 Findings and Recommendations bonds up to $750,000. MSBDFA can also guarantee up to 90 percent of a surety‟s losses on bid, performance, or payment bonds up to $900,000. This assistance is available to firms that have been denied bonds, but have not defaulted on loans or financial assistance from MSBDFA. 9.6.8 Insurance Programs Port of Portland. The port has made noteworthy efforts to address barriers to small firms from insurance requirements. A Port Process Management sub group met on insurance barriers and issued a white paper in August of 2003. The sub group identified insurance barriers in the areas of insurance in excess of associated risk, complex language, difficulties in small firms obtaining blanket insurance certificates, and additional costs for on-call contractors. The sub-group identified low risk consultant areas that did not require insurance, simplified insurance language, altered some blanket insurance coverage requirements, clarified what could be met with primary and excess insurance, proposed simplifying the port indemnity, and proposed sending appropriate insurance requirements in sample contracts attached to RFPs and RFQs. The port also looked at a cooperative insurance program for small business although there was not much success with this initiative. 9.6.9 Mentor-Protégé Programs Florida Business Roundtable. An interesting variant of mentor-protégé program is the Business Roundtable. The Florida African American Business Investment Fund (BBIF) Roundtable Technical and Financial Assistance Program helps build management capacity within firms through an interactive management group that allows for firms to benefit from consulting with qualified advisors and to interface with their peers. The BBIF Roundtable is funded by governmental and quasi-governmental entities. The Roundtable is a management development tool that utilizes the results of a gap assessment and recommendations from the plan established with the business to develop the management capacity of business owners and the growth capacity of their businesses. In the Roundtable, business owners meet once a month and function as resources to one another. They develop creative solutions by collaborating on common obstacles. The Roundtable is an interactive management development tool, not a training course. In Roundtable sessions, principals present the real issues that they are dealing with in their businesses and work with a paid consultant advisors and their peers to develop action plans to resolve those issues. An additional sub-group of the program is the Construction Roundtable. Construction specialists provide technical and operations guidance to construction firms. Members of the construction industry participate in Roundtable sessions, as mentors, with clients. The purpose of this group is to expose Roundtable participants to business techniques, business opportunities and professional relationships in the construction industry Business challenges are then monitored on a month-to-month basis by advisors. Accountability that is encouraged by developing work plans; and tracking and sharing progress toward established goals. Financial ratios are used as baseline measures of business performance. Firms are graduated from the Roundtable when their ratio performance has met pre-determined standards and the firms have become “bankable.” MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-17 Findings and Recommendations San Francisco International Airport. Prime concessionaries subleased to smaller DBEs and provided management and training. These smaller DBEs subsequently “graduated” to winning concessions without assistant of a prime concessionaire. Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). The TxDOT developed a mentoring program called Learning, Information, Networking and Collaboration (LINC) in which the TxDOT‟s Business Opportunity Program Section serves as the mentor to selected S/M/W/DBE firms. The focus of the program is to prepare the LINC protégé firms to bid and perform on TxDOT contracts. The Business Opportunity Program section introduces the protégés to key TxDOT staff and to prime contractors. LINC mentors, TxDOT staff, business providers, bonding agents and trainers meet with LINC protégés in scheduled meetings and work individually with the LINC protégés. The selected LINC protégés sign an agreement committing to the time and effort needed for a successful mentor-protégé relationship. The duration of the LINC mentorship arrangement is one year. Port of Portland Mentor-Protégé Program. The prime port management and technical assistance (M&TA) program is the mentor-protégé program (also widely known as the Stempel Plan), which has been nationally recognized as a best practice in management and technical assistance. Other agencies have come to Portland to observe the operations of the port plan. The mentor-protégé program has been in place since 1995. Most Port M&TA is run through the mentor-protégé program, which focuses on finances, marketing, and operations. The port‟s mentor-protégé program was approved by the Federal Aviation Commission in FY2000 as a Small Business Development Program. Protégés must be current in taxes and licensing requirements, in continuous operation for the past 24 months and be certified by the state Office of Minority, Women, and Emerging Small Businesses. Protégés also must pass an assessment evaluation. About 90 percent of mentor-protégé program participants have been construction firms, although assistance has also been provided to concessionaires. Firms are in the program two to three years on average. The Port mentor-protégé program partners with the city of Portland, ODOT, and the AGC. The program has a supportive services budget of $75,000 for outside consultants working with protégés. One firm helps with bookkeeping and Certified Public Accountants (CPA) reporting, one helps with operations and construction management, and another firm assists protégés with bidding and estimating. In addition to the consultants, there are two mentors for every protégé. Protégés are not charged for these services. The mentor-protégé program does not satisfy port DBE goals or good faith efforts requirements and does not promise work to protégés. The program has sponsored small business development sessions with the city of Portland since program inception. Since 2002, the classes have covered construction subcontracting agreements and lien rights, estimating business planning, project management, human resources, prevailing wage, balance sheet, job costing, work in progress schedule, leadership and motivation, marketing, how to do business with the port and the city of Portland, general conditions, business law, costing equipment to jobs, and the basics of bonding. Course instructors have included attorneys, CPAs, engineers, construction firm owners, and Small Business Development Center staff. About 30 to 40 firms attends fall M&TA sessions every year. Generally, the program‟s budget was primarily spent on bookkeeping and accounting, MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-18 Findings and Recommendations between 50 and 70 percent in most years. The rest of the budget was spent on business plans, operational consulting classes, and the AGC conferences. 9.6.10 Evaluation of Race- Neutral Alternatives The Port of Portland has evaluated the effectiveness of its race-neutral efforts. The port produced an analysis of 67 firms that had graduated from its mentor-protégé program. Of the 67 mentor-protégé program graduates studied in the port data from 2001 to 2006, seven were out of business and 23 had Port experience. Most firms had between five and 40 employees and one had greater than $1 million in revenue. One firm was greater than $50 million in revenue another greater than $15 million, and three were others were above $5 million in revenue. The data was incomplete on all firms. 9.6.11 Outreach Bexar County, Texas, Small, Minority, and Women Business Owners Conference. Bexar County, in conjunction with the city of San Antonio, has sponsored annual Small, Minority, and Women Business Owners conferences since 2001. The conferences have been co-sponsored by the Central and South Texas Minority Business Council in conjunction with a number of major corporations, including Dell, Toyota, and AT&T. Typically conference workshops have addressed the following:        Doing business with federal, state, and local agencies, and the private sector. Access to capital. Human resources. Franchising. Management. Veterans. Responding to bids and RFPs. Registered attendees grew from 1,200 in 2001 to 2,400 in 2006; estimated total attendance grew from 1,800 in 2001 to 5,000 in 2006. The number of exhibitors grew from 75 in 2001 to 180 in 2006.16 Virtually all the major local agencies, loan providers, business development providers, and chambers of commerce participate in the conference along with a number of major corporations. The conference budget for 2007 was $250,000. 9.6.12 Performance Measures Florida DOT. The Evaluation Plan for Florida Department of Transportation Small Business Initiative has the following performance measures: 1. What specific action(s) were identified that the Department could implement or continue to help small businesses increase their capacity to bid as a prime? 2. Which of the identified strategies resulted in new businesses becoming interested in a long term partnership with the Department as a prime? 16 Small, Minority, and Women Business Owners (S/M/WBO) Conference, Frequently Asked Questions, at 6. MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-19 Findings and Recommendations 3. What are the success stories? 4. How many businesses that were identified have the desire and ability to grow from a sub to a prime? 5. How many businesses are bidding on reserved contracts compared to those that are not reserved? 6. How many businesses that never bid as primes are now bidding on reserved contracts as primes? 7. How many businesses that were subcontractors or subconsultants have been awarded contracts as a prime? 8. How many businesses, awarded a reserved contract, bid on contracts that were not reserved? 9. How many businesses were able to take advantage of the waiver of the bonding requirements? What is the size of the businesses that took advantage of the waiver? 10. How many contracts resulted in a default? What was the dispute? 11. How many „problem‟ contracts adversely affected the end product? What was the issue, i.e., product, time or cost? 12. How many protests were filed? What was the protest issue? 9.6.13 DBE Reporting ODOT has a relatively complete reporting system for DBEs in construction, with 105 tables, and includes coverage of DBE utilization at the subcontract and prime contract levels, bidders, small business utilization, prompt payment, commercially useful function review, complaints against prime contractors, on-the-job training, and labor compliance. The system is updated daily. MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-20 Findings and Recommendations Appendix Summary of Disparity Evidence Exhibit 9-8 below summarizes disparities found in chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7. The table also indicates where capacity is controlled for either (1) econometrically, (2) through controls for contract size, (3) through controls for prime versus subcontractor status, (4) through controls for bidder availability, or (5) through demonstrated capacity on goal projects. Exhibit 9-8 provides the core of the factual predicate for the participation of African American, Hispanic American and Asian American firms in race-conscious DBE goals for construction. Exhibit 9-9 provides a summary of disparity information for A&E. EXHIBIT 9-8 SUMMARY TABLE OF DISPARITY EVIDENCE CONSTRUCTION ADOT 2008 DISPARITY STUDY Prime Contractor Disparity (bidder availability) Disparity Small Prime Contracts (<$1 million) Disparity in Dollar Value of Construction Subcontracts Disparity in Number of Construction Subcontracts Regression Analysis on ADOT Construction Vendor Earnings (controlling for capacity variables) Disparity in Dollar Value of Construction Subcontracts (State Funded Projects) Disparity in Dollar Value of Construction Subcontracts (Federal Projects With No DBE Goals) MGT of America, Inc. African Hispanic Asian Americans Americans Americans ADOT Goal Projects Analysis No Yes No Availability Availability Native Americans Women Yes Yes No Availability Yes No Availability Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Not statistically significant Not statistically significant Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No No Page 9-21 Findings and Recommendations EXHIBIT 9-8 (Continued) SUMMARY TABLE OF DISPARITY EVIDENCE CONSTRUCTION ADOT 2008 DISPARITY STUDY Disparity For Census Construction Firms with Paid Employees in marketplace (Census Dollars) Disparity in Entry into Construction Self Employment (controlling for capacity variables) Disparity in Earnings From Construction Self Employment (controlling for capacity variables) Disparity for Prime Contractors in Phoenix Private Marketplace (Reed Construction, Dollars, relative to goal projects) Disparity for Subcontractors in Phoenix Private Marketplace (Building Permits, Dollars, relative to goal projects) Disparity in Small Business Credit (controlling for capacity variables) African Hispanic Asian Americans Americans Americans Non Goal Projects Analysis Yes Yes Yes Native Americans Women Yes Yes Yes Yes Not statistically significant Yes Yes Yes Yes Not statistically significant Not statistically significant Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not statistically significant Not statistically significant Not statistically significant Not statistically significant Source: 2008 ADOT Disparity Study Chapters 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0. MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-22 Findings and Recommendations EXHIBIT 9-9 SUMMARY TABLE OF DISPARITY EVIDENCE ARCHITECTURE & ENGINEERING ADOT 2008 DISPARITY STUDY Prime A&E Disparity (bidder availability) Disparity Small Prime Contracts (<$1 million) Disparity in Dollar Value of A&E Subcontracts Disparity in Number of A&E Subcontracts Disparity For Suspension Period Disparity For Census A&E Firms with Paid Employees in marketplace (Census Dollars) Disparity in Entry into A&E Self Employment (controlling for capacity variables) Disparity in Earnings From A&E Self Employment (controlling for capacity variables) Disparity in Small Business Credit (controlling for capacity variables) African Hispanic Asian Americans Americans Americans ADOT Goal Projects Analysis Yes Yes No Native Americans Women Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No No No Non Goal Projects Analysis Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not statistically significant Not statistically significant Yes Yes Not statistically significant Not statistically significant Not statistically significant Not statistically significant Source: 2008 ADOT Disparity Study Chapters 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0. MGT of America, Inc. Page 9-23 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: UTILIZED PRIME AND SUBCONTRACTORS APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H626201C H646001C SS49101C H576701C H407601C H592401C H534801C H563001C H564201C H386803C H610001C SL46801C H586701C H569301C H539901C SL46901C H583701C H573801C H680301C H610401C H585201C H434701C H589701C H584901C H610301C H526201C H466501C H585001C H657701C SL46601C SS49901C H622801C SS50001C H600001C H631001C H612201C H375301C H598601C H633101C H595544C SS61001C H531901C H540201C SH28601C PRIME NAME ABBCO SIGN GROUP INC ABBCO SIGN GROUP INC JV ELECTRICAL CONCEPTS INC ACHEN GARDNER ENGINEERING LLC AMES CONSTRUCTION INC AMES CONSTRUCTION INC AMES CONSTRUCTION INC AMES CONSTRUCTION INC AMES CONSTRUCTION INC AMES CONSTRUCTION INC AMES CONSTRUCTION INC AMES CONSTRUCTION INC JV EDWARD KRAEMER & SONS INC ANNCOLE CONTRACTING CORP ANNCOLE CONTRACTING CORP ANNCOLE CONTRACTING CORP ANNCOLE CONTRACTING CORP ANNCOLE CONTRACTING CORP ANNCOLE CONTRACTING CORP ANNCOLE CONTRACTING CORP ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ASHTON COMPANY INC CONTRACTORS & ENGINEERS ASHTON COMPANY INC CONTRACTORS & ENGINEERS ASHTON COMPANY INC CONTRACTORS & ENGINEERS ASHTON COMPANY INC CONTRACTORS & ENGINEERS ASHTON COMPANY INC CONTRACTORS & ENGINEERS ASHTON COMPANY INC CONTRACTORS & ENGINEERS ASHTON COMPANY INC CONTRACTORS & ENGINEERS ASHTON COMPANY INC CONTRACTORS & ENGINEERS ASHTON COMPANY INC CONTRACTORS & ENGINEERS ASPHALT PAVING & SUPPLY INC B & F CONTRACTING INC BISON CONTRACTING CO INC BISON CONTRACTING CO INC BISON CONTRACTING CO INC BISON CONTRACTING CO INC BISON CONTRACTING CO INC BISON CONTRACTING CO INC BISON CONTRACTING CO INC BISON CONTRACTING CO INC BISON CONTRACTING CO INC BISON CONTRACTING CO INC BISON CONTRACTING CO INC BISON CONTRACTING CO INC BISON CONTRACTING CO INC C K C CONSTRUCTION CO AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY PRIME COUNTY_ST $62,525.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,393,680.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $3,800,169.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $5,447,154.25 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $25,643,042.70 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $17,581,381.43 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $13,219,984.65 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,094,988.20 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $8,331,522.10 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $23,376,195.35 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $75,685,003.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $472,504.50 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $323,528.55 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $555,603.50 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $194,111.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $339,185.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $512,344.80 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $214,797.25 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $194,413.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN YAVAPAI, AZ $1,588,550.81 2003 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $2,263,789.06 2005 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $4,347,527.58 2003 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $379,915.00 2002 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $1,953,943.00 2004 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $537,469.00 2003 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $629,910.00 2002 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $5,603,387.94 2005 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $3,498,419.70 2004 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $2,218,910.40 2007 NONMINORITY YAVAPAI, AZ $337,474.40 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,853,641.50 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $949,450.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $1,946,160.50 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $3,145,443.51 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $1,556,918.81 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $175,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $5,501,275.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $140,195.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $680,218.45 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $3,178,465.55 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $3,697,995.75 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $693,746.80 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $2,283,776.45 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $1,214,103.64 2006 NONMINORITY GRAHAM, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-1 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H503706C H557001C H525501C SS43601C H595501C H444401C SS46401C SH28001C H666601C H543701C H638801C H525901C H526001C SS56501C H577901C SS56501C H548301C H586401C H561801C H526501C H636101C H629501C H355201C H648601C HX13702C H561201C H585801C H586301C H586001C SS45101C H536601C H582301C H532001C SS42101C H528203C H659001C H589801C H463901C H494201C H569001C H605201C H616901C H633201C HX09101C HX16101C PRIME NAME C K C CONSTRUCTION CO C K C CONSTRUCTION CO C K C CONSTRUCTION CO C M A INC DBA CMA COM SERV CO C S & W CONTRACTORS INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S MCCROSSAN INC C S MCCROSSAN INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CAITLIN CONSTRUCTION INC CARSON CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC D B A CONSTRUCTION INC D J S CO INC DAR HIL CORPORATION DAR HIL CORPORATION DOWN TO EARTH CONTRACTING INC DOWN TO EARTH CONTRACTING INC DOWN TO EARTH CONTRACTING INC DOWN TO EARTH CONTRACTING INC DOWN TO EARTH CONTRACTING INC E M E WEST CONSTRUCTION INC E M E WEST CONSTRUCTION INC AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY PRIME COUNTY_ST $5,472,796.69 2005 NONMINORITY GRAHAM, AZ $1,248,576.50 2003 NONMINORITY GRAHAM, AZ $1,268,333.80 2002 NONMINORITY GRAHAM, AZ $2,377,938.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $2,283,819.22 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,877,716.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $280,930.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $290,053.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $8,216,213.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,289,608.50 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,789,517.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $900,717.26 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,846,203.51 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $468,390.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $812,014.55 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $468,390.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $292,640.38 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $757,020.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $2,959,759.52 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $519,350.22 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,562,241.32 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,085,695.16 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,286,745.55 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $404,757.75 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $339,803.10 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $721,639.90 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,106,321.80 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $758,904.17 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $721,151.55 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $537,785.15 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,043,788.50 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $444,869.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,637,003.74 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,448,395.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,041,714.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $191,729.50 2006 NONMINORITY GILA, AZ $934,192.00 2003 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $2,107,350.00 2003 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $351,109.60 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $448,866.73 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $389,568.69 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $55,156.61 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $816,001.50 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $164,052.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $447,415.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-2 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H612701C H648801C H556201C H502501C H555701C H527901C H585101C H614901C H615101C H552301C H595502C H457303C H568603C H591201C H524401C H528501C H584401C H524601C H559701C H591001C H535501C H612801C H524801C H526401C H426101C H483102C H637101C H572201C H613301C H416001C H526601C H584701C H615501C H585601C H664901C H637103C H589601C H614201C H646301C H585501C H560101C H611501C H678001C H659301C H556501C PRIME NAME F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY $5,627,759.74 2005 NONMINORITY $2,196,731.05 2005 NONMINORITY $2,176,562.60 2003 NONMINORITY $12,625,294.85 2002 NONMINORITY $1,292,624.74 2003 NONMINORITY $999,274.02 2002 NONMINORITY $4,276,135.95 2005 NONMINORITY $4,328,366.40 2005 NONMINORITY $4,552,473.71 2005 NONMINORITY $3,351,931.40 2005 NONMINORITY $10,278,488.83 2003 NONMINORITY $14,750,149.92 2002 NONMINORITY $40,951,760.96 2004 NONMINORITY $50,458,079.70 2005 NONMINORITY $695,448.34 2003 NONMINORITY $1,949,247.36 2002 NONMINORITY $6,456,345.40 2005 NONMINORITY $7,565,881.09 2003 NONMINORITY $2,189,366.00 2002 NONMINORITY $12,293,333.25 2003 NONMINORITY $709,194.50 2002 NONMINORITY $1,674,674.00 2005 NONMINORITY $2,644,517.22 2002 NONMINORITY $1,156,799.70 2002 NONMINORITY $2,363,805.50 2003 NONMINORITY $7,558,161.20 2002 NONMINORITY $5,533,806.33 2003 NONMINORITY $3,422,835.40 2002 NONMINORITY $4,511,715.52 2005 NONMINORITY $18,979,938.45 2003 NONMINORITY $1,448,196.35 2002 NONMINORITY $6,369,198.79 2004 NONMINORITY $9,753,469.85 2006 NONMINORITY $1,329,854.90 2004 NONMINORITY $73,704,905.30 2006 NONMINORITY $10,782,690.30 2004 NONMINORITY $657,458.25 2003 NONMINORITY $5,177,668.00 2006 NONMINORITY $633,260.05 2004 NONMINORITY $865,886.23 2004 NONMINORITY $8,089,553.20 2004 NONMINORITY $6,443,901.20 2004 NONMINORITY $8,269,850.33 2007 NONMINORITY $4,439,234.67 2007 NONMINORITY $2,494,206.15 2003 NONMINORITY PRIME COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-3 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H626401C H556901C H556401C H528001C H584801C H622201C H624401C H585701C H614801C H525201C H525401C H681001C H614101C H602701C H584501C H525001C H527001C H526901C H436101C H589201C H595506C H595508C H511801C H527501C H635901C H489301C H635701C H524501C H434501C H390201C H589901C H458301C SS49801C H584201C H613801C H527301C H613901C H679101C H636301C H636701C H683001C H555801C H637001C H583901C H567601C PRIME NAME F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC FALCONE BROS & ASSOCIATE INC FALCONE BROS & ASSOCIATE INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FISHEL CO FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO DBA SOUTHWEST ASPHALT PAVING FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO DBA SOUTHWEST ASPHALT PAVING FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO DBA SOUTHWEST ASPHALT PAVING FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO DBA SOUTHWEST ASPHALT PAVING FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO DBA SOUTHWEST ASPHALT PAVING FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO DBA SOUTHWEST ASPHALT PAVING FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO DBA SOUTHWEST ASPHALT PAVING FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO DBA SOUTHWEST ASPHALT PAVING FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO DBA SOUTHWEST ASPHALT PAVING FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO DBA SOUTHWEST ASPHALT PAVING FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO DBA SOUTHWEST ASPHALT PAVING FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO DBA SOUTHWEST ASPHALT PAVING AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY $820,311.80 2004 NONMINORITY $1,195,584.35 2003 NONMINORITY $1,535,205.20 2003 NONMINORITY $1,165,924.74 2003 NONMINORITY $3,383,566.00 2007 NONMINORITY $483,246.50 2005 NONMINORITY $454,585.65 2005 NONMINORITY $3,119,441.60 2005 NONMINORITY $4,221,589.10 2005 NONMINORITY $1,097,511.22 2002 NONMINORITY $1,107,115.29 2002 NONMINORITY $3,857,257.00 2007 NONMINORITY $1,232,168.32 2005 NONMINORITY $2,127,724.95 2005 NONMINORITY $2,770,424.88 2005 NONMINORITY $784,515.03 2005 NONMINORITY $1,469,408.41 2002 NONMINORITY $1,142,015.34 2002 NONMINORITY $915,367.72 2004 NONMINORITY $2,589,858.78 2002 NONMINORITY $7,497,596.40 2005 NONMINORITY $6,933,790.70 2005 NONMINORITY $9,450,199.80 2005 NONMINORITY $4,577,300.60 2002 NONMINORITY $1,777,748.50 2006 NONMINORITY $4,067,783.20 2004 NONMINORITY $3,754,766.75 2006 NONMINORITY $2,250,770.71 2003 NONMINORITY $4,329,619.24 2003 NONMINORITY $2,787,815.00 2006 NONMINORITY $1,447,039.90 2003 NONMINORITY $2,497,743.00 2003 NONMINORITY $424,181.14 2005 NONMINORITY $4,753,200.76 2004 NONMINORITY $3,149,351.29 2005 NONMINORITY $460,555.44 2004 NONMINORITY $11,795,259.00 2005 NONMINORITY $1,943,603.00 2006 NONMINORITY $3,250,684.00 2006 NONMINORITY $7,799,060.00 2007 NONMINORITY $2,742,915.24 2007 NONMINORITY $3,662,286.37 2004 NONMINORITY $7,299,307.00 2007 NONMINORITY $2,545,245.25 2004 NONMINORITY $1,678,485.25 2004 NONMINORITY PRIME COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-4 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H614401C H636601C H636301C H554401C H615301C H557201C H341401C H667001C H510401C H545501C H453501C H629401C H585301C H652701C H458201C H543101C H586201C H525601C H516301C H545501C H613701C H636001C H528206C H527801C H587601C H451001C H595503C HX11801C SS49301C SS49401C H378401C H614601C H428202C SS57301C H490602C H390502C H555901C H585901C H681601C H460301C H633601C H552901C H581701C SS49501C H537002C PRIME NAME FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO DBA SOUTHWEST ASPHALT PAVING FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO DBA SOUTHWEST ASPHALT PAVING FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO DBA SOUTHWEST ASPHALT PAVING FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO DBA SOUTHWEST ASPHALT PAVING FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO DBA SOUTHWEST ASPHALT PAVING FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO DBA SOUTHWEST ASPHALT PAVING FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO DBA SOUTHWEST ASPHALT PAVING GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO HAN MAR ENERGY INC HAN MAR ENERGY INC HAN MAR ENERGY INC HARK DRILLING INC HATCH CONSTRUCTION & PAVING INC HATCH CONSTRUCTION & PAVING INC HATCH CONSTRUCTION & PAVING INC HATCH CONSTRUCTION & PAVING INC HATCH CONSTRUCTION & PAVING INC HATCH CONSTRUCTION & PAVING INC HATCH CONSTRUCTION & PAVING INC HATCH CONSTRUCTION & PAVING INC HAYDON BUILDING CORP HAYDON BUILDING CORP HAYDON BUILDING CORP HAYDON BUILDING CORP ITS ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS OF UTAH INC J BANICKI CONSTRUCTION INC AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY $2,651,957.00 2007 NONMINORITY $10,105,187.00 2006 NONMINORITY $3,250,684.00 2006 NONMINORITY $25,471,633.40 2006 NONMINORITY $1,849,292.00 2006 NONMINORITY $2,761,732.67 2003 NONMINORITY $30,352,243.25 2007 NONMINORITY $272,185.12 2007 NONMINORITY $12,337,300.94 2005 NONMINORITY $16,276,276.00 2006 NONMINORITY $2,180,180.00 2003 NONMINORITY $793,366.00 2004 NONMINORITY $2,267,187.00 2004 NONMINORITY $888,362.00 2007 NONMINORITY $18,734,751.00 2005 NONMINORITY $996,767.00 2004 NONMINORITY $1,171,944.00 2004 NONMINORITY $5,549,549.00 2002 NONMINORITY $12,209,912.00 2003 NONMINORITY $16,276,276.00 2006 NONMINORITY $2,251,344.00 2006 NONMINORITY $4,509,287.93 2006 NONMINORITY $3,401,724.00 2006 NONMINORITY $405,601.00 2002 NONMINORITY $711,216.00 2002 NONMINORITY $1,465,136.00 2004 NONMINORITY $7,986,986.00 2004 NONMINORITY $365,194.00 2003 NONMINORITY $997,707.05 2004 NONMINORITY $641,786.45 2004 NONMINORITY $989,907.90 2006 NONMINORITY $2,149,989.85 2005 NONMINORITY $2,043,135.14 2003 NONMINORITY $861,374.30 2006 NONMINORITY $289,803.17 2003 NONMINORITY $383,949.49 2003 NONMINORITY $1,511,889.13 2002 NONMINORITY $2,238,897.52 2004 NONMINORITY $1,708,952.00 2007 NONMINORITY $2,053,747.70 2007 NONMINORITY $562,897.95 2007 NONMINORITY $1,806,161.92 2004 NONMINORITY $7,444,853.50 2005 NONMINORITY $682,090.00 2007 NONMINORITY $1,853,805.57 2004 NONMINORITY PRIME COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ NAVAJO, AZ NAVAJO, AZ NAVAJO, AZ NAVAJO, AZ NAVAJO, AZ NAVAJO, AZ NAVAJO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-5 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H614301C SS52601C SS50901C SB36901C SB36501C H571301C HX15801C H605001C H569601C SS50801C H590001C H605301C H551901C H660301C H605101C H303802C H623901C H643401C H524301C H527201C H447201C H303001C H466203C H488601C H410401C SB40101C H569801C H618201C SL44103C H640201C SS44701C H648201C H436701C H521001C H503703C H601502C H601401C H584601C H584301C H601501C H637102C H639201C H463301C H468101C H563901C PRIME NAME J BANICKI CONSTRUCTION INC J BANICKI CONSTRUCTION INC J BANICKI CONSTRUCTION INC J BANICKI CONSTRUCTION INC J BANICKI CONSTRUCTION INC J N J ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC JENSON COMMERCIAL CONTRACTING LLC K A Z CONSTRUCTION INC K A Z CONSTRUCTION INC K A Z CONSTRUCTION INC K A Z CONSTRUCTION INC K A Z CONSTRUCTION INC K A Z CONSTRUCTION INC K A Z CONSTRUCTION INC K A Z CONSTRUCTION INC K E & G CONSTRUCTION INC K E & G CONSTRUCTION INC KIEWIT SUNDT JV KIEWIT WESTERN CO KIEWIT WESTERN CO KIEWIT WESTERN CO KIEWIT WESTERN CO KIEWIT WESTERN CO KIEWIT WESTERN CO KIEWIT WESTERN CO M A C CONTRACTING INC M ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CORP M ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CORP M ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CORP M ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CORP MARKHAM CONTRACTING CO INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY $1,504,553.59 2005 NONMINORITY $67,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $1,587,929.80 2004 NONMINORITY $405,290.73 2003 NONMINORITY $113,447.37 2003 NONMINORITY $1,522,635.24 2003 NONMINORITY $200,085.10 2006 NONMINORITY $700,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $250,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $1,720,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $1,700,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $640,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $430,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $930,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $1,040,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $9,726,590.10 2002 NONMINORITY $320,232.05 2005 NONMINORITY $200,300,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $2,074,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $1,421,652.00 2002 NONMINORITY $32,500,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $12,930,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $40,530,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $2,460,666.53 2002 NONMINORITY $2,487,333.47 2002 NONMINORITY $292,723.79 2003 NONMINORITY $85,518.73 2004 NONMINORITY $102,286.82 2004 NONMINORITY $174,842.50 2005 NONMINORITY $269,039.75 2007 NONMINORITY $2,607,797.81 2003 NONMINORITY $7,337,987.26 2005 NONMINORITY $4,081,949.00 2004 NONMINORITY $17,394,291.37 2005 NONMINORITY $7,142,373.85 2004 NONMINORITY $3,533,779.73 2005 NONMINORITY $8,450,092.00 2004 NONMINORITY $2,500,454.00 2004 NONMINORITY $709,336.00 2004 NONMINORITY $6,308,477.55 2005 NONMINORITY $7,821,296.00 2004 NONMINORITY $4,898,093.35 2006 NONMINORITY $1,592,364.61 2002 NONMINORITY $9,145,154.00 2003 NONMINORITY $8,058,525.34 2003 NONMINORITY PRIME COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MOHAVE, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ COCHISE, AZ COCHISE, AZ YUMA, AZ YUMA, AZ YUMA, AZ YUMA, AZ YUMA, AZ YUMA, AZ YUMA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-6 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H441502C H555601C H499102C H556101C H463801C H636501C H502801C H644001C H458401C H658401C H670201C HX19201C H524101C H595504C H635301C H463201C H463501C H463601C H458101C H580401C H556001C H526801C H527701C H635401C H423901C H660401C H641301C H655601C SH27801C SS53401C H490801C H679401C H529901C H578201C H706001C H617801C H578301C H591101C H319003C H625901C H591301C H591501C H541701C H538101C H568604C PRIME NAME MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MERIDIAN ENGINEERING CO MERIDIAN ENGINEERING CO NAC CONSTRUCTION A DIVISION OF COLORADO RIVER MATERIALS INC NAC CONSTRUCTION A DIVISION OF COLORADO RIVER MATERIALS INC NESBITT CONTRACTING CO INC NESBITT CONTRACTING CO INC NESBITT CONTRACTING CO INC NESBITT CONTRACTING CO INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PULICE CONSTRUCTION INC PULICE CONSTRUCTION INC PULICE CONSTRUCTION INC PULICE CONSTRUCTION INC PULICE CONSTRUCTION INC PULICE CONSTRUCTION INC PULICE CONSTRUCTION INC PULICE CONSTRUCTION INC PULICE CONSTRUCTION INC PULICE CONSTRUCTION INC PULICE CONSTRUCTION INC PULICE CONSTRUCTION INC PULICE CONSTRUCTION INC AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY $10,532,664.85 2003 NONMINORITY $1,408,331.00 2003 NONMINORITY $1,611,111.00 2003 NONMINORITY $2,999,993.75 2003 NONMINORITY $2,603,245.13 2002 NONMINORITY $11,993,043.55 2006 NONMINORITY $6,571,015.80 2003 NONMINORITY $5,887,560.95 2006 NONMINORITY $20,629,173.70 2006 NONMINORITY $1,868,825.65 2006 NONMINORITY $4,440,913.65 2007 NONMINORITY $242,510.09 2007 NONMINORITY $7,274,528.30 2007 NONMINORITY $8,084,988.60 2007 NONMINORITY $5,538,942.75 2007 NONMINORITY $1,398,381.12 2002 NONMINORITY $1,920,761.35 2002 NONMINORITY $1,833,507.73 2002 NONMINORITY $4,525,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $768,190.26 2002 NONMINORITY $1,220,070.88 2003 NONMINORITY $1,885,309.74 2002 NONMINORITY $898,369.00 2002 NONMINORITY $2,069,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $842,227.00 2005 NONMINORITY $341,896.60 2007 NONMINORITY $421,610.10 2007 NONMINORITY $1,482,356.17 2005 NONMINORITY $753,346.00 2004 NONMINORITY $7,112,299.50 2007 NONMINORITY $1,541,838.00 2002 NONMINORITY $34,694.20 2006 NONMINORITY $46,835,302.58 2002 NONMINORITY $195,340,042.70 2006 NONMINORITY $19,621,533.69 2007 NONMINORITY $35,777,668.75 2007 NONMINORITY $67,415,008.85 2006 NONMINORITY $58,869,153.70 2005 NONMINORITY $54,272,422.30 2002 NONMINORITY $15,727,574.60 2004 NONMINORITY $54,113,671.30 2004 NONMINORITY $39,462,936.00 2004 NONMINORITY $11,864,628.17 2003 NONMINORITY $47,704,946.00 2004 NONMINORITY $71,374,831.65 2005 NONMINORITY PRIME COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-7 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H497201C H549401C H622101C H661501C H649301C HX17401C H561401C SH27301C SB36701C SB36401C H576301C SS55901C SS52701C H608201C H569701C H556601C H532301C SB36101C H550601C H210701C H460401C HX15701C H591601C H425601C H415901C H557101C H645101C H574501C SH28101C H556701C H556301C H313502C H573402C H429201C H599901C SS46701C H633401C SS58601C H560401C H616501C SB40701C H576801C H578101C SH28201C H526701C H593301C H237805C H569201C H606901C H532801C H510601C H603101C H618301C SL45001C H606501C PRIME NAME R E MONKS CONSTRUCTION CO LLC R E MONKS CONSTRUCTION CO LLC JV TRAYLOR BROS INC RECON INC RECON INC ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO RUMMEL CONSTRUCTION INC RURAL ELECTRIC INC SHOW LOW CONSTRUCTION INC SHOW LOW CONSTRUCTION INC SHOW LOW CONSTRUCTION INC SHOW LOW CONSTRUCTION INC SHOW LOW CONSTRUCTION INC SHOW LOW CONSTRUCTION INC SHOW LOW CONSTRUCTION INC SHOW LOW CONSTRUCTION INC SHOW LOW CONSTRUCTION INC SHOW LOW CONSTRUCTION INC SHOW LOW CONSTRUCTION INC SHOW LOW CONSTRUCTION INC SHOW LOW CONSTRUCTION INC SILVER EAGLE WESTERN LLC SILVER EAGLE WESTERN LLC SOUTHERN ARIZONA PAVING & CONSTRUCTION CO SOUTHERN ARIZONA PAVING & CONSTRUCTION CO SOUTHERN ARIZONA PAVING & CONSTRUCTION CO SOUTHWEST ENVIROSCAPES INC SOUTHWEST ENVIROSCAPES INC SOUTHWEST ENVIROSCAPES INC STANDARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC STANDARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC STANDARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC STANDARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC STRONGHOLD CONTRACTING INC STRONGHOLD CONTRACTING INC STRONGHOLD CONTRACTING INC SUNDT CONSTRUCTION INC SUNDT CONSTRUCTION INC TANNER COMPANIES YUMA INC TANNER COMPANIES YUMA INC TANNER COMPANIES YUMA INC UNDERWOOD BROS INC DBA AAA LANDSCAPE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION CO INC UTILITY CONSTRUCTION CO INC VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT INC VASTCO INC VASTCO INC VASTCO INC VASTCO INC W R SKOUSEN CONTRACTOR, INC AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY PRIME COUNTY_ST $12,210,635.11 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $25,934,219.70 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $173,978.75 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $484,637.40 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $5,899,496.51 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,850,034.96 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $443,282.20 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,079,920.90 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $352,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $696,489.80 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $447,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $837,522.70 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $245,705.50 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $990,682.20 2007 NONMINORITY NAVAJO, AZ $614,200.40 2005 NONMINORITY NAVAJO, AZ $2,777,440.65 2005 NONMINORITY NAVAJO, AZ $271,706.50 2003 NONMINORITY NAVAJO, AZ $689,232.00 2003 NONMINORITY NAVAJO, AZ $3,511,969.28 2003 NONMINORITY NAVAJO, AZ $7,099,941.55 2005 NONMINORITY NAVAJO, AZ $5,841,807.12 2003 NONMINORITY NAVAJO, AZ $238,595.30 2006 NONMINORITY NAVAJO, AZ $3,122,340.20 2004 NONMINORITY NAVAJO, AZ $4,831,581.55 2003 NONMINORITY NAVAJO, AZ $6,294,678.45 2002 NONMINORITY NAVAJO, AZ $1,991,721.60 2004 NONMINORITY NAVAJO, AZ $425,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $190,999.75 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $759,575.70 2007 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $1,020,121.90 2003 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $2,399,680.30 2004 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $487,481.00 2003 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $185,008.37 2003 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $200,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $1,308,692.25 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $178,197.20 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $736,129.45 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,262,239.98 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $464,698.50 2002 NONMINORITY YAVAPAI, AZ $88,561.80 2003 NONMINORITY YAVAPAI, AZ $1,248,280.00 2003 NONMINORITY YAVAPAI, AZ $11,887,520.10 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $22,855,183.65 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $669,153.30 2007 NONMINORITY YUMA, AZ $1,029,871.42 2005 NONMINORITY YUMA, AZ $194,396.50 2004 NONMINORITY YUMA, AZ $772,087.12 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $123,831.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $560,160.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,572,656.10 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $30,480,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY YAVAPAI, AZ $1,784,752.00 2006 NONMINORITY YAVAPAI, AZ $1,627,249.00 2005 NONMINORITY YAVAPAI, AZ $997,520.00 2005 NONMINORITY YAVAPAI, AZ $903,507.31 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-8 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H319003C H681601C SS49401C H516301C H610001C H425601C H581701C SS53401C H407601C H584401C SS49901C H489301C H581701C H633101C SS50001C H436101C H611501C H490602C H584701C H555801C H624401C H434501C H489301C H466501C H585201C H610001C H578201C H585301C H303802C HX17401C H415901C H598601C H613801C H603101C H552901C H425601C H410401C H608201C H649301C H584201C H548301C H581701C SS55901C H540201C SH28601C H210701C H587601C SS49101C H375301C H488601C H605101C SB36901C H543101C H600001C H556601C H550601C SH27801C SUB NAME A & S PAVING INC A & S TRUCKING A 1 PAVING & GRADING INC A A AND R CONSTRUCTION CO A A C STRUCTURES OF ARIZONA LLC A C S CONAID INC A C S CONAID INC A C S CONAID INC ACTL A K SIGNAL AND UTILITY CO A K SIGNAL AND UTILITY CO A K SIGNAL AND UTILITY CO A K SIGNAL AND UTILITY CO A K SIGNAL AND UTILITY CO A K SIGNAL AND UTILITY CO A K SIGNAL AND UTILITY CO A K SIGNAL AND UTILITY CO A K SIGNAL AND UTILITY CO A K SIGNAL AND UTILITY CO A K SIGNAL AND UTILITY CO A K SIGNAL AND UTILITY CO A K SIGNAL AND UTILITY CO A M TRUCKING INC A O PAINTING INC A O PAINTING INC A PAC PRESSURE GROUTING AND STABILIZATION A R A ADJUSTMENTS INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC A T L INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $30,000.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $9,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $6,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $152,240.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $16,098.12 2003 NONMINORITY C $35,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $20,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $25,770.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $35,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $18,944.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $2,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $316,875.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $18,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $389,999.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $2,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $2,800.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $6,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $8,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $2,200.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $10,700.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $5,925.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $6,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $11,670.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $11,670.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $185,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $25,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $14,445.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $60,000.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $8,900.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $90,000.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $2,770.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $12,555.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $1,977.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $10,000.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $40,000.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $20,000.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $14,777.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $35,755.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $49,579.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $5,955.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $90,000.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $9,255.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $24,000.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $9,777.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $60,000.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $2,220.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $47,290.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $35,555.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $20,000.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $7,700.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $5,500.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $6,656.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $17,770.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $40,500.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $25,000.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $3,300.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-9 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # SB36501C H534801C H554401C H643401C H407601C H643401C H595503C H584901C H681001C H608201C H659301C SS55901C H390201C H635401C H584201C HX13702C SS58601C H644001C H585501C H611501C H560101C H584901C SS46701C SS61001C H648601C H447201C H552901C H568603C H706001C H521001C H457303C H319003C H563901C H617801C H578201C H578301C H584401C H605101C H436101C H635701C H390201C H463901C H564201C H646301C H637101C H591201C H564201C H622101C H610001C H585201C H592401C H516301C H643401C H584901C H591101C H556701C H585001C SUB NAME A T L INC A TEAM PROFESSIONAL ASSOC INC A Z DESTINY CONTRACTING DBA DESTINY CONTRACTING LLC A Z GRADEMAKER INC A Z GRADEMAKER INC A Z GRADEMAKER INC ABBCO ENTERPRISES LLC DBA ABBCO SIGN GROUP ABBCO ENTERPRISES LLC DBA ABBCO SIGN GROUP ABBCO SIGN GROUP INC ABBCO SIGN GROUP INC ABBCO SIGN GROUP INC ABBCO SIGN GROUP INC ABBCO SIGN GROUP INC ABBCO SIGN GROUP INC ABSOLUTE SURVEYING & MAPPING ABSOLUTE SURVEYING & MAPPING ACTION BARRICADE CO LLC ACTION BARRICADE CO LLC ACTION BARRICADE CO LLC ACTION BARRICADE CO LLC ACTION BARRICADE CO LLC ACTION BARRICADE CO LLC ACTION BARRICADE CO LLC ACTION BARRICADE CO LLC ACTION BARRICADE CO LLC ADAMS CONTRACTING & EXCAVATING LLC ADAMS CONTRACTING & EXCAVATING LLC ADAMS CONTRACTING & EXCAVATING LLC ADRA CONTRACTING INC ADRA CONTRACTING INC ADRA CONTRACTING INC ADRA CONTRACTING INC ADRA CONTRACTING INC ADRA CONTRACTING INC ADRA CONTRACTING INC ADRA CONTRACTING INC AGGREGATE PRODUCTS TRUCKING LLC ALAMO STEEL DESIGN INC ALAN RENSBERGER TRUCKING ALAN RENSBERGER TRUCKING ALBAS TRUCKING ALBO GUZMAN TRUCKING ALBO GUZMAN TRUCKING ALL CITY TRI CITY POWER SWEEPING INC ALL CITY TRI CITY POWER SWEEPING INC ALL CUT CONCRETE CUTTING DBA MARZIALE ENTERPRISES INC ALL CUT CONCRETE CUTTING DBA MARZIALE ENTERPRISES INC ALLIANCE CONCRETE ALLIANCE SERVICE AND CONTROL SPECIALISTS INC ALLIED FORCES ALLIED FORCES AMEC EARTH & ENVIROMENTAL INC AMEC EARTH & ENVIROMENTAL INC AMEC EARTH & ENVIROMENTAL INC AMEC EARTH & ENVIROMENTAL INC AMEC EARTH & ENVIROMENTAL INC AMEC EARTH & ENVIROMENTAL INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $5,500.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $7,080.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $461,520.00 2006 NONMINORITY $8,500.00 2007 NONMINORITY $40,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $300,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $48,911.85 2004 NONMINORITY $7,281.01 2004 NONMINORITY $23,690.00 2007 NONMINORITY $23,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY $5,998.00 2007 NONMINORITY $45,028.00 2007 NONMINORITY $73,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY $10,508.00 2006 NONMINORITY $22,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY $5,215.00 2004 NONMINORITY $19,923.10 2007 NONMINORITY $62,706.25 2006 NONMINORITY $11,245.50 2004 NONMINORITY $93,753.00 2004 NONMINORITY $152,290.60 2004 NONMINORITY $3,091.90 2004 NONMINORITY $3,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $10,450.00 2007 NONMINORITY $10,000.75 2006 NONMINORITY $25,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $368,324.26 2004 NONMINORITY $95,700.00 2004 NONMINORITY $1,305,290.00 2007 NONMINORITY $161,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $354,225.30 2002 NONMINORITY $5,600.00 2002 NONMINORITY $115,200.00 2003 NONMINORITY $2,755,484.00 2007 NONMINORITY $6,483,150.00 2006 NONMINORITY $3,229,655.00 2006 NONMINORITY $160,800.00 2005 NONMINORITY $40,320.00 2006 NONMINORITY $6,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY $6,400.00 2006 NONMINORITY $12,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY $13,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $26,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $1,560.00 2004 NONMINORITY $9,360.00 2003 NONMINORITY $925.85 2005 NONMINORITY $3,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $24,450.00 2004 NONMINORITY $95,440.00 2003 NATIVE AMERICAN $10,000.57 2005 NONMINORITY $7,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY $88,165.00 2003 NONMINORITY $448,441.80 2007 NONMINORITY $37,350.00 2004 NONMINORITY $26,608.00 2005 NONMINORITY $3,023.00 2003 NONMINORITY $58,200.00 2004 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-10 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H576701C H554401C H644001C H683001C H458401C H617801C H460401C H531901C H595544C H613301C H585101C H615501C H601501C H560101C SB40701C H576801C H511801C H568603C H560401C H591201C H375301C H444401C H407601C H313502C H434501C H633101C H571301C SS49901C SS50801C SS50801C H581701C SS50001C H664901C H564201C H541701C H534801C H622101C H578201C H664901C H423901C H643401C H633201C H457303C H341401C H549401C SB36101C H528001C H645101C H591001C H503703C H524801C H511801C H585701C H589901C H657701C H557201C H636701C SUB NAME AMEC EARTH & ENVIROMENTAL INC AMERICAN ASPHALT & GRADING CO AMERICAN ASPHALT & GRADING CO AMERICAN ASPHALT & GRADING CO AMERICAN ASPHALT & GRADING CO AMERICAN PRECAST PRODUCTS LLC AMMEX REBAR PLACERS INC AMMEX REBAR PLACERS INC AMMEX REBAR PLACERS INC AMMEX REBAR PLACERS INC AMMEX REBAR PLACERS INC AMMEX REBAR PLACERS INC AMMEX REBAR PLACERS INC AMMEX REBAR PLACERS INC AMMEX REBAR PLACERS INC AMMEX REBAR PLACERS INC AMMEX REBAR PLACERS INC AMMEX REBAR PLACERS INC AMMEX REBAR PLACERS INC AMMEX REBAR PLACERS INC AMMEX REBAR PLACERS INC AMMEX REBAR PLACERS INC AMMEX REBAR PLACERS INC ANAYA CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION INC ANDERSON EMERGENCY RESPONSE ANNCOLE CONTRACTING CORP ANNCOLE CONTRACTING CORP ANNCOLE CONTRACTING CORP ANNCOLE CONTRACTING CORP ANNCOLE CONTRACTING CORP ANNCOLE CONTRACTING CORP ANNCOLE CONTRACTING CORP ANNS WATER SERVICE ANSCO INC ANSCO INC APEX LAND SURVEYING APEX LAND SURVEYING APPLIED DIVING SERVICES INC AQUA DUCK INC ARAPAHOE TREE SERVICE ARAPAHOE TREE SERVICE ARGUS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES L DBA ARGUS ENGINEERING ARIZONA BLACKMAT CORPORATION ARIZONA DRILLING AND SAWING ARIZONA DRILLING AND SAWING ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $38,503.60 2005 NONMINORITY C $125,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $7,900.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $8,100.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $24,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $5,457.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $47,908.17 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $10,246.80 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $600,962.88 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $191,100.79 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $147,483.71 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $201,018.95 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $467,674.16 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $778,660.72 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $100,502.11 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $1,291,834.68 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $230,349.81 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $1,042,429.56 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $25,049.10 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $4,312,262.76 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $114,218.60 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $19,687.65 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $1,195,925.05 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $3,138.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $23,920.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $175,333.93 2007 NONMINORITY C $407,119.53 2003 NONMINORITY C $260,435.40 2006 NONMINORITY C $470,361.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $31,433.51 2006 NONMINORITY C $424,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $407,409.73 2006 NONMINORITY C $9,750.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $85,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $125,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $10,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $3,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $18,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $14,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $1,560.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $2,700.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $11,500.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $4,142.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $2,463.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $958.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $26,776.80 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $21,931.50 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $17,412.30 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $125,650.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $98,507.44 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $80,092.25 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $151,757.91 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $219,837.05 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $10,292.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $94,723.97 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $29,764.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $436,665.62 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-11 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H595506C H559701C H639201C H584501C H595502C H555601C H584601C H631001C H637001C H528501C H635701C H602701C H581701C H585301C H525401C H595508C H526901C H601401C H613801C H589601C H458301C H636601C H526401C H524401C H453501C H556901C H612701C H584701C H407601C H586401C SB40701C H635901C H572201C H516301C H549401C H615101C H460301C H614601C H555701C H525901C H563001C H614101C H611501C H613701C H648201C H643401C H585101C H434501C H584301C H585001C H613301C H659301C H423901C H595503C H468101C H556601C H618301C SUB NAME ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $168,549.73 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $48,951.50 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $69,582.33 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $57,353.99 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $87,037.70 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $102,888.45 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $34,054.64 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $63,329.30 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $405,194.21 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $17,761.25 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $45,853.73 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $21,757.50 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $6,554.40 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $16,113.10 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $15,413.45 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $109,936.63 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $26,741.65 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $392,162.41 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $161,942.78 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $8,255.50 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $63,604.38 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $276,585.32 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $75,835.30 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $27,839.88 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $112,624.23 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $143,019.77 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $272,046.28 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $115,960.79 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $430,172.80 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $28,737.95 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $42,391.81 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $102,488.74 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $54,655.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $74,043.20 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $188,005.65 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $394,575.24 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $55,022.60 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $69,123.59 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $116,682.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $54,310.12 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $107,788.80 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $65,624.97 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $199,250.61 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $26,953.15 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $134,766.31 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $79,433.43 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $130,557.48 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $28,466.80 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $707,213.20 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $70,523.52 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $110,991.25 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $61,580.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $86,259.53 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $83,478.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $85,424.95 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $13,553.60 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-12 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H524301C H606501C H527501C H386803C H552301C H554401C H561801C H618301C H407601C H576701C SB36401C H549401C H603101C H497201C H636701C SB36701C H537002C SH27301C H534801C H592401C H535501C H536601C H606501C H527201C H526401C H525601C H444401C H528001C H526201C H453501C H516301C H581701C SS49101C H608201C H613701C H510401C HX13702C H423901C H636001C H591601C H637001C H635901C H451001C H602701C H629501C H589201C H555701C H527301C H556101C H561801C H415901C SH28601C H390201C H525001C H525601C H615101C H436101C SUB NAME ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SOLUTIONS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SOLUTIONS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SOLUTIONS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SOLUTIONS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SOLUTIONS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SOLUTIONS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SOLUTIONS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SOLUTIONS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SOLUTIONS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SOLUTIONS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SOLUTIONS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SOLUTIONS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SOLUTIONS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SOLUTIONS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SOLUTIONS INC ARIZONA HYDROSEED LLC ARIZONA HYDROSEED LLC ARIZONA HYDROSEED LLC ARIZONA HYDROSEED LLC ARIZONA HYDROSEED LLC ARIZONA HYDROSEED LLC ARIZONA HYDROSEED LLC ARIZONA HYDROSEED LLC ARIZONA HYDROSEED LLC ARIZONA INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES INC ARIZONA INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES INC ARIZONA LABOR FORCE INC ARIZONA LABOR FORCE INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $53,213.68 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $71,306.48 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $51,745.30 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $107,788.80 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $14,573.45 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $265,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $45,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $13,200.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $25,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $43,800.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $5,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $328,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $17,765.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $117,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $34,625.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $5,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $21,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $5,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $20,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $279,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $2,900.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $2,509.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $5,020.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $2,687.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $2,731.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $3,594.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $2,800.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $2,295.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $2,470.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $7,380.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $21,900.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $2,191.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $4,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $9,416.84 2007 NONMINORITY C $142,666.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $2,723.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $2,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $1,177.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $147,908.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $38,760.69 2004 NONMINORITY C $209,208.07 2007 NONMINORITY C $7,300.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $12,617.90 2004 NONMINORITY C $6,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $72,590.84 2005 NONMINORITY C $14,771.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $60,021.60 2003 NONMINORITY C $312,875.98 2004 NONMINORITY C $14,800.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $27,848.08 2005 NONMINORITY C $31,317.22 2002 NONMINORITY C $10,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $14,400.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $90,517.84 2005 NONMINORITY C $299,792.80 2002 NONMINORITY C $113,778.40 2005 NONMINORITY C $9,990.00 2004 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-13 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H557101C H561201C H407601C H614101C H564201C HX15801C H595504C H534801C H584801C H556301C H511801C H526501C H536601C H521001C H556601C H557001C H631001C H527801C H614801C H555801C H525901C H636101C H503706C H460401C H355201C SH27801C H585701C H516301C H458301C H490801C H567601C H637103C H489301C H375301C H526901C H466203C H545501C H610401C H545501C H458201C H629401C H613701C H510401C H516301C H636001C H528206C H652701C H466501C H585201C H571301C H643401C H210701C H526701C H441502C H595506C H468101C H595508C SUB NAME ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA RENEWABLE RESOURCES ARIZONA TRUCKING AND MATERIALS LLC ARIZONA TRUCKING AND MATERIALS LLC ARIZONA TRUCKING AND MATERIALS LLC ARIZONA TRUCKING AND MATERIALS LLC ARIZONA TRUCKING AND MATERIALS LLC ARIZONA TRUCKING AND MATERIALS LLC ARIZONA TRUCKING AND MATERIALS LLC ARIZONA TRUCKING AND MATERIALS LLC ARIZONA TRUCKING AND MATERIALS LLC ARIZONA TRUCKING AND MATERIALS LLC ARIZONA TRUCKING AND MATERIALS LLC ARIZONA TRUCKING AND MATERIALS LLC ARIZONA TRUCKING AND MATERIALS LLC ARROW STRIPING INC ARROW WATER SERVICE LLC ARTCRAFT GRANITE MARBLE & TILE CO ARVISO ENGINEERING INC DBA GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES ARVISO ENGINEERING INC DBA GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES ARVISO ENGINEERING INC DBA GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES ARVISO ENGINEERING INC DBA GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES ARVISO ENGINEERING INC DBA GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $44,060.22 2004 NONMINORITY $5,114.60 2003 NONMINORITY $3,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $90,517.84 2005 NONMINORITY $6,175.00 2003 NONMINORITY $5,200.00 2006 NONMINORITY $12,068.00 2007 NONMINORITY $33,689.95 2003 NONMINORITY $699,591.02 2007 NONMINORITY $9,533.84 2004 NONMINORITY $106,911.19 2005 NONMINORITY $21,111.75 2002 NONMINORITY $7,318.83 2002 NONMINORITY $24,900.00 2005 NONMINORITY $5,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $58,503.00 2003 NONMINORITY $10,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $18,022.84 2002 NONMINORITY $12,800.00 2005 NONMINORITY $8,809.40 2004 NONMINORITY $39,680.00 2002 NONMINORITY $261,283.59 2006 NONMINORITY $17,836.36 2005 NONMINORITY $5,415.10 2003 NONMINORITY $15,780.00 2004 NONMINORITY $6,750.00 2004 NONMINORITY $119,244.50 2005 NONMINORITY $5,430.00 2003 NONMINORITY $18,880.38 2003 NONMINORITY $7,327.32 2002 NONMINORITY $312,875.98 2004 NONMINORITY $4,900.00 2004 NONMINORITY $9,990.00 2004 NONMINORITY $16,310.00 2002 NONMINORITY $2,805.45 2002 NONMINORITY $9,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $23,700.00 2006 NONMINORITY $9,280.00 2003 NONMINORITY $23,700.00 2006 NONMINORITY $9,945.00 2005 NONMINORITY $6,300.00 2004 NONMINORITY $92,747.50 2006 NONMINORITY $2,280.00 2005 NONMINORITY $14,520.00 2003 NONMINORITY $14,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $18,472.50 2006 NONMINORITY $41,588.00 2007 NONMINORITY $114,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $114,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $3,050.00 2003 NONMINORITY $175,500.00 2007 NONMINORITY $78,340.00 2005 NONMINORITY $26,200.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $167,000.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $86,350.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $196,890.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $89,430.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-14 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # SS56501C H618301C H560101C SS56501C H625901C H521001C H578301C H510401C H591201C SS49101C H568603C H568604C H564201C SB40701C H468101C H591101C H578201C H576701C H610001C H592401C H549401C H458301C H534801C H407601C H568603C H626401C H497201C H560101C H416001C H510601C H617801C H578301C H578201C H210701C SS43601C H529901C SS46401C H666601C H552901C H510401C H643401C H543701C H564201C H453501C H458101C H532801C H526501C H444401C H463501C H526801C H560401C H463201C H525601C H490801C H529901C H532001C HX09101C SUB NAME ASPHALT BUSTERS INC ASPHALT BUSTERS INC ASPHALT BUSTERS INC ASPHALT BUSTERS INC ASPHALT BUSTERS INC ASPHALT BUSTERS INC ASPHALT BUSTERS INC ASPHALT BUSTERS INC ASPHALT BUSTERS INC ASPHALT BUSTERS INC ASPHALT BUSTERS INC ASPHALT BUSTERS INC ASPHALT BUSTERS INC ASPHALT BUSTERS INC ASPHALT BUSTERS INC ASPHALT BUSTERS INC ASPHALT BUSTERS INC ASPHALT BUSTERS INC AUSTIN TRUCKING LLC AUSTIN TRUCKING LLC AUSTIN TRUCKING LLC AUSTIN TRUCKING LLC AUSTIN TRUCKING LLC AUSTIN TRUCKING LLC AUSTON STRUCTURAL CONCRETE AUSTON STRUCTURAL CONCRETE AUSTON STRUCTURAL CONCRETE AUSTON STRUCTURAL CONCRETE AUSTON STRUCTURAL CONCRETE AUZA CONSTRUCTION INC AZTEC ENGINEERING AZTEC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE DBA THOMSON SWEEPING AZTEC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE DBA THOMSON SWEEPING B & B PLUMBING INC B & F CONTRACTING INC B B P CONSTRUCTION CO B LINE DIRECTIONAL DRILLING LLC B LINE DIRECTIONAL DRILLING LLC BARCON CORP BARNETT AND SHORE CONTRACTORS LLC BARNETT TOWING LLC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $24,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $6,758.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $1,800.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $24,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $9,296.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $56,711.82 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,420.96 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,217.34 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $16,492.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $28,928.48 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $15,050.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,890.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,500.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $5,200.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $10,140.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $76,043.22 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $7,400.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $6,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,992.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $25,550.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $35,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $20,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $45,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,405,518.29 2004 NONMINORITY C $65,128.75 2004 NONMINORITY C $176,867.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $97,098.45 2004 NONMINORITY C $2,551,591.63 2003 NONMINORITY C $180,078.75 2006 NONMINORITY C $2,243.00 2007 ASIAN AMERICAN C $32,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $65,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $119,540.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $594,456.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $133,648.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $50,200.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $320,350.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $220,931.48 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $27,244.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $1,029,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $20,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $43,449.30 2003 NONMINORITY C $34,383.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $51,650.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $3,380.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $3,651.30 2002 NONMINORITY C $250,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $21,425.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $4,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $4,548.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $45,912.40 2002 NONMINORITY C $116,294.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $29,304.40 2002 NONMINORITY C $25,502.80 2002 NONMINORITY C $49,754.36 2002 NONMINORITY C $1,783.50 2002 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-15 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H525201C SS43601C H582301C H313502C H563901C H554401C H510401C H550601C H434701C H624401C H540201C H341401C H237805C H468101C H516301C H529901C SS50901C H666601C H407601C H552901C H554401C H463901C H483102C H591201C H636101C H614801C H631001C H460301C SH28001C H556901C H616901C H606901C H586201C H614201C H595508C H552901C H608201C H556201C H466501C H540201C SS49901C H585201C H545501C H636301C H549401C H525901C H633101C H516301C H584801C H559701C SS57301C H561801C H521001C H655601C H600001C H613901C H659301C SUB NAME BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BECHO INC BECHO INC BECHO INC BECHO INC BECHO INC BECHO INC BEDROCK LANDSCAPE MATERIALS & SUPPLIES BIFF BAKER FENCE CO INC BILL TOMS CONSTRUCTION BILLY COMEAUX TRUCKING BLADE RUNNERS INC BLADE RUNNERS INC BLADE RUNNERS INC BLASTING CONTRACTORS LLC BLASTING CONTRACTORS LLC BLASTING CONTRACTORS LLC BLASTING CONTRACTORS LLC BLUCOR CONTRACTING BLUCOR CONTRACTING BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $250.00 2002 NONMINORITY $9,500.00 2002 NONMINORITY $84,300.00 2002 NONMINORITY $18,500.00 2003 NONMINORITY $74,950.00 2003 NONMINORITY $669,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $364,890.00 2005 NONMINORITY $248,675.00 2003 NONMINORITY $46,696.00 2003 NONMINORITY $7,200.00 2005 NONMINORITY $132,466.00 2002 NONMINORITY $11,200.00 2007 NONMINORITY $22,716.74 2002 NONMINORITY $588,739.25 2003 NONMINORITY $17,400.00 2003 NONMINORITY $24,243.00 2002 NONMINORITY $3,825.00 2004 NONMINORITY $375.00 2007 NONMINORITY $230,250.00 2004 NONMINORITY $11,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $563,586.44 2006 NONMINORITY $26,650.00 2003 NONMINORITY $250,025.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $1,912,624.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $11,996.11 2006 NONMINORITY $18,810.54 2005 NONMINORITY $12,715.60 2005 NONMINORITY $12,154.80 2007 NONMINORITY $3,132.00 2003 NONMINORITY $9,013.80 2003 NONMINORITY $7,034.50 2007 NONMINORITY $15,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $11,382.50 2004 NONMINORITY $19,354.50 2006 NONMINORITY $14,396.72 2005 NONMINORITY $16,120.90 2004 NONMINORITY $17,676.20 2007 NONMINORITY $6,202.85 2003 NONMINORITY $56,803.46 2005 NONMINORITY $30,527.00 2002 NONMINORITY $13,100.00 2006 NONMINORITY $56,803.46 2005 NONMINORITY $180,224.64 2006 NONMINORITY $53,790.80 2006 NONMINORITY $109,592.60 2004 NONMINORITY $29,906.75 2002 NONMINORITY $2,615.00 2007 NONMINORITY $70,885.07 2003 NONMINORITY $25,417.30 2007 NONMINORITY $4,183.76 2002 NONMINORITY $505.10 2006 NONMINORITY $21,969.25 2005 NONMINORITY $49,703.04 2005 NONMINORITY $10,944.56 2005 NONMINORITY $70,445.25 2004 NONMINORITY $48,083.33 2005 NONMINORITY $18,403.60 2007 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-16 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H635901C H578301C H341401C H660301C H614401C H661501C H622101C H648201C H511801C SS49101C H602701C H569701C H554401C SS49401C H595506C SS50001C H390201C H557101C H615301C H375301C H637001C H636301C HX15701C H635701C H545501C H595544C H636701C HX13702C H613701C H633601C H666601C H572201C H598601C H610001C H416001C H585101C H423901C H535501C H531901C H591001C H605201C H635401C H612201C H605101C H578201C H638801C H585301C H585801C H595501C H637102C H622801C SS45101C H524801C H614901C H590001C H524401C H526401C SUB NAME BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $9,792.90 2006 NONMINORITY $96,677.40 2006 NONMINORITY $190,652.35 2007 NONMINORITY $35,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $6,651.00 2007 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $6,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $88,005.41 2005 NONMINORITY $53,664.30 2005 NONMINORITY $150,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $22,637.15 2005 NONMINORITY $11,250.00 2005 NONMINORITY $117,898.66 2006 NONMINORITY $90,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $17,115.44 2005 NONMINORITY $3,200.00 2006 NONMINORITY $4,027.27 2006 NONMINORITY $4,339.28 2004 NONMINORITY $3,997.30 2006 NONMINORITY $9,315.25 2002 NONMINORITY $32,699.20 2007 NONMINORITY $53,790.80 2006 NONMINORITY $8,977.50 2006 NONMINORITY $121,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY $180,224.64 2006 NONMINORITY $7,893.08 2005 NONMINORITY $34,527.40 2007 NONMINORITY $6,340.00 2004 NONMINORITY $40,640.65 2006 NONMINORITY $19,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $53,368.60 2007 NONMINORITY $79,968.90 2002 NONMINORITY $2,750.00 2004 NONMINORITY $25,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $73,109.50 2003 NONMINORITY $35,651.00 2005 NONMINORITY $3,092.19 2005 NONMINORITY $45,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $4,340.40 2003 NONMINORITY $369,033.00 2003 NONMINORITY $7,034.50 2007 NONMINORITY $12,770.90 2006 NONMINORITY $6,467.20 2003 NONMINORITY $24,973.00 2006 NONMINORITY $145,805.30 2006 NONMINORITY $44,766.40 2005 NONMINORITY $11,577.45 2004 NONMINORITY $2,198.80 2004 NONMINORITY $6,066.10 2003 NONMINORITY $16,800.00 2004 NONMINORITY $2,581.00 2006 NONMINORITY $10,856.75 2005 NONMINORITY $10,881.95 2002 NONMINORITY $42,979.80 2005 NONMINORITY $105,300.00 2006 NONMINORITY $13,196.00 2003 NONMINORITY $2,630.40 2002 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-17 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H636001C H643401C HX16101C H524501C H545501C H664901C H568603C H457303C H568604C H572201C H416001C H545501C H528001C H460301C H460401C H572201C SS53401C SS61001C H527801C H660401C H543101C H451001C H622201C H660401C H587601C SH28101C H641301C H528206C H525601C H600001C H641301C H556301C H210701C H563001C H568603C SS49101C H319003C H502501C H538101C H670201C H578201C H550601C H706001C H591501C H545501C H458201C H643401C H592401C H625901C H617801C H591001C H639201C H591301C H615501C H591101C HX17401C H568604C SUB NAME BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BOBS BARRICADES INC BREINHOLT CONTRACTING CO INC BREINHOLT CONTRACTING CO INC BREINHOLT CONTRACTING CO INC BREINHOLT CONTRACTING CO INC BREINHOLT CONTRACTING CO INC BREINHOLT CONTRACTING CO INC BREINHOLT CONTRACTING CO INC BREINHOLT CONTRACTING CO INC BRIAN HANCOCK TRUCKING BRIDGE STONE SERVICES BRIDGE STONE SERVICES BRIMHALL SAND ROCK & BUILDING MATERIALS BRIZCO CONSTRUCTION LLC BROOKS ENGINEERS AND SURVEYOR INC BROWN & WHITE INC BROWN & WHITE INC BROWN & WHITE INC BROWN & WHITE INC BROWN & WHITE INC BROWN & WHITE INC BROWN & WHITE INC BROWN & WHITE INC BROWN & WHITE INC BROWN & WHITE INC BROWN & WHITE INC BROWN & WHITE INC BROWN & WHITE INC BROWN & WHITE INC BROWN TANK AND STEEL DBA BRONCO TANK AND STEEL FABRICATION BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $45,345.40 2006 NONMINORITY $1,161,640.09 2007 NONMINORITY $8,945.38 2005 NONMINORITY $1,017.80 2003 NONMINORITY $25,100.00 2006 NONMINORITY $806,910.84 2006 NONMINORITY $390,450.90 2004 NONMINORITY $19,950.00 2002 NONMINORITY $83,806.60 2005 NONMINORITY $149,185.00 2002 NONMINORITY $83,900.00 2003 NONMINORITY $25,100.00 2006 NONMINORITY $60,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $2,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY $30,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $369,675.00 2002 NONMINORITY $573,014.00 2007 NONMINORITY $21,375.00 2007 NONMINORITY $4,818.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $6,156.50 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $3,413.75 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $54,932.74 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $24,293.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $25,389.75 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $8,425.85 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $13,483.35 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $25,389.75 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $44,766.50 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $17,136.75 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $62,593.67 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $6,156.50 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $13,366.41 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $28,774.00 2005 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $19,725.00 2004 NONMINORITY $10,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $183,645.00 2002 NONMINORITY $12,990.00 2002 NONMINORITY $218,375.00 2004 NONMINORITY $2,400.00 2007 NONMINORITY $215,329.50 2006 NONMINORITY $2,957.50 2003 NONMINORITY $25,610.00 2007 NONMINORITY $127,558.00 2004 NONMINORITY $32,040.00 2006 NONMINORITY $9,952.50 2005 NONMINORITY $354,105.00 2007 NONMINORITY $55,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $109,615.00 2004 NONMINORITY $67,466.00 2007 NONMINORITY $7,030.00 2003 NONMINORITY $980.00 2006 NONMINORITY $136,320.00 2004 NONMINORITY $12,606.88 2006 NONMINORITY $127,617.50 2005 NONMINORITY $5,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $200,922.00 2005 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-18 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H545501C H407601C H521001C H458401C H578101C H447201C H534801C H578301C H210701C H574501C H510601C H618301C H576801C H526601C H635701C H614201C H636301C H610001C H545501C H526401C H526801C H637103C H636501C H611501C H648601C H568604C H584701C H556201C H636301C H636601C H556501C H589601C H545501C H644001C H538101C H637001C H683001C H648801C H591001C H614301C H659301C H648201C H585101C H585701C H670201C H636701C H578101C H521001C H541701C H613801C H706001C H613901C H341401C H524401C H458201C H643401C H617801C SUB NAME BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BUG SNUFFERS PEST & TERMITE CONTROL BUNTIN EXCAVATING CO C & E PAVING & GRADING LLC C & E PAVING & GRADING LLC C & E PAVING & GRADING LLC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $32,040.00 2006 NONMINORITY $25,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $3,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $33,600.00 2006 NONMINORITY $120,006.50 2004 NONMINORITY $105,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $25,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $137,612.00 2006 NONMINORITY $4,008.96 2005 NONMINORITY $7,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $1,679,929.50 2006 NONMINORITY $80,995.00 2005 NONMINORITY $49,700.00 2004 NONMINORITY $5,808.00 2002 NONMINORITY $21,700.00 2006 NONMINORITY $2,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $16,192.00 2006 NONMINORITY $68,400.00 2003 NONMINORITY $4,890.00 2006 NONMINORITY $10,532.00 2002 NONMINORITY $19,145.00 2002 NONMINORITY $74,880.00 2004 NONMINORITY $70,850.00 2006 NONMINORITY $11,786.00 2004 NONMINORITY $720.00 2006 NONMINORITY $8,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY $18,758.00 2004 NONMINORITY $11,948.00 2003 NONMINORITY $16,192.00 2006 NONMINORITY $66,250.00 2006 NONMINORITY $11,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $3,462.00 2003 NONMINORITY $4,890.00 2006 NONMINORITY $4,550.00 2006 NONMINORITY $7,600.00 2004 NONMINORITY $16,280.00 2007 NONMINORITY $9,200.00 2007 NONMINORITY $12,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $12,425.00 2003 NONMINORITY $2,704.00 2005 NONMINORITY $17,248.00 2007 NONMINORITY $29,410.00 2005 NONMINORITY $10,674.70 2005 NONMINORITY $9,882.00 2005 NONMINORITY $10,200.00 2007 NONMINORITY $16,280.00 2007 NONMINORITY $15,600.00 2004 NONMINORITY $2,125.00 2005 NONMINORITY $7,600.00 2003 NONMINORITY $11,400.00 2005 NONMINORITY $47,500.00 2007 NONMINORITY $25,650.00 2005 NONMINORITY $1,800.00 2007 NONMINORITY $4,576.00 2003 NONMINORITY $2,120.00 2005 NONMINORITY $38,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $33,250.00 2007 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-19 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H681601C H584501C H664901C H590001C H210701C H666601C H591001C H521001C H426101C H706001C H643401C SS46701C H210701C H589901C H502501C H490801C H532001C H524301C H525601C H415901C H525201C H483102C H527501C H580401C SS43601C H526601C H525601C H524801C H524601C H615101C H648801C H601501C H578301C H556601C H595503C H637103C H595508C H556501C H626401C H560101C H637101C H541701C H584301C H636301C SS42101C H556101C H638801C H458301C HX16101C H556001C H605001C H636301C H591001C SH27801C H556401C H585301C H601401C SUB NAME C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C D DEVELOPMENT LLC C H B DBA CHARLIE HANCOCK BUILDING INC C J S ENTERPRISES LLC C J S ENTERPRISES LLC C J S ENTERPRISES LLC C K C CONSTRUCTION C M C REBAR ARIZONA C M C REBAR ARIZONA DBA C M C STEL FABRICATORS INC C M TRUCKING INC C N ENTERPRISES C P C CONCRETE CUTTING INC C P C CONCRETE CUTTING INC C P C CONCRETE CUTTING INC C P C CONCRETE CUTTING INC C P C CONCRETE CUTTING INC C P C CONCRETE CUTTING INC C P C CONCRETE CUTTING INC C P C CONCRETE CUTTING INC C P C CONCRETE CUTTING INC C P C CONCRETE CUTTING INC C P C CONCRETE CUTTING INC C P C CONCRETE CUTTING INC C P C CONCRETE CUTTING INC C P C CONCRETE CUTTING INC C P C CONCRETE CUTTING INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $13,960.00 2007 NONMINORITY $19,015.00 2005 NONMINORITY $16,600.00 2006 NONMINORITY $6,144.00 2006 NONMINORITY $10,655.00 2005 NONMINORITY $28,800.00 2007 NONMINORITY $379,112.03 2003 NONMINORITY $2,533,829.00 2005 NONMINORITY $2,200.00 2003 NONMINORITY $597,502.15 2007 NONMINORITY $822,326.22 2007 NONMINORITY $5,000.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $307,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY $4,500.00 2003 NONMINORITY $2,900.00 2002 NONMINORITY $5,150.00 2002 NONMINORITY $4,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $4,450.00 2002 NONMINORITY $114,250.00 2002 NONMINORITY $11,785.00 2002 NONMINORITY $12,200.00 2002 NONMINORITY $28,500.00 2002 NONMINORITY $3,640.00 2002 NONMINORITY $87,615.00 2002 NONMINORITY $2,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $2,350.00 2002 NONMINORITY $34,810.00 2002 NONMINORITY $16,775.00 2002 NONMINORITY $4,900.00 2003 NONMINORITY $9,550.00 2005 NONMINORITY $28,075.00 2005 NONMINORITY $8,856.50 2005 NONMINORITY $18,428.40 2006 NONMINORITY $4,250.00 2005 NONMINORITY $3,050.00 2004 NONMINORITY $830,918.00 2004 NONMINORITY $1,224.00 2005 NONMINORITY $3,100.00 2003 NONMINORITY $14,700.00 2004 NONMINORITY $3,425.00 2004 NONMINORITY $3,971.25 2003 NONMINORITY $13,300.00 2003 NONMINORITY $3,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $37,175.00 2006 NONMINORITY $2,500.00 2003 NONMINORITY $2,050.00 2003 NONMINORITY $10,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $8,070.00 2003 NONMINORITY $1,327.20 2005 NONMINORITY $11,475.00 2003 NONMINORITY $8,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY $37,175.00 2006 NONMINORITY $119,980.00 2003 NONMINORITY $2,625.00 2004 NONMINORITY $33,055.00 2003 NONMINORITY $4,650.00 2004 NONMINORITY $30,650.00 2004 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-20 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H524401C H636101C H568604C H584601C H595506C H585501C H555601C SS45101C H646301C SB40101C H386803C H605001C H549401C H601502C H531901C H610001C H502801C H303802C H527201C H626401C H210701C H529901C H664901C H524601C H468101C H670201C H568604C H538101C H560101C H578201C H591201C HX13702C H463501C H563901C H569701C H591601C H524401C H416001C H561801C H554401C H460301C H549401C SS49801C SS49101C H595544C H649301C H560101C H560101C H511801C H591201C H601502C H466501C SS49401C H521001C H563901C H527201C H637102C SUB NAME C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C R S I CONCRETE RESTORATION SYSTEM INC C R S I CONCRETE RESTORATION SYSTEM INC C R SMITH CONSTR CO & TRUCKING INC C S & W CONTRACTORS INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S MCCROSSAN INC C S MCCROSSAN INC C S MCCROSSAN INC C S MCCROSSAN INC C T PRICE CONTRACTING INC C T PRICE CONTRACTING INC C T PRICE CONTRACTING INC C V A STRUCTURAL CONCRETE INC C V A STRUCTURAL CONCRETE INC C V A STRUCTURAL CONCRETE INC C V A STRUCTURAL CONCRETE INC C V A STRUCTURAL CONCRETE INC C V A STRUCTURAL CONCRETE INC CABLE CONCRETE LLC CABLE SOLUTIONS LLC CACTUS ASPHALT A DIVISION OF CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS SURFACING SOLUTIONS A DIVISION OF CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS SURFACING SOLUTIONS A DIVISION OF CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $3,925.00 2003 NONMINORITY $7,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $32,371.44 2005 NONMINORITY $2,950.00 2004 NONMINORITY $982.50 2005 NONMINORITY $12,400.00 2004 NONMINORITY $2,650.00 2003 NONMINORITY $8,359.20 2005 NONMINORITY $9,762.50 2004 NONMINORITY $103,945.23 2003 NONMINORITY $38,556.00 2003 NONMINORITY $8,800.00 2005 NONMINORITY $14,746.00 2004 NONMINORITY $540,240.50 2005 NONMINORITY $170,757.00 2003 NONMINORITY $5,461,640.00 2003 NONMINORITY $85,541.00 2003 NONMINORITY $1,259,534.50 2002 NONMINORITY $26,128.00 2002 NONMINORITY $114,693.50 2004 NONMINORITY $580,394.00 2005 NONMINORITY $4,371,551.50 2002 NONMINORITY $4,671,431.10 2006 NONMINORITY $35,784.50 2003 NONMINORITY $485,369.00 2003 NONMINORITY $659,900.00 2007 NONMINORITY $2,109,227.00 2005 NONMINORITY $1,633,379.50 2004 NONMINORITY $473,757.00 2004 NONMINORITY $7,194,736.75 2006 NONMINORITY $2,393,507.00 2005 NONMINORITY $32,077.00 2004 NONMINORITY $781,243.00 2002 NONMINORITY $1,796,980.00 2003 NONMINORITY $162,891.00 2005 NONMINORITY $183,662.00 2004 NONMINORITY $133,195.00 2003 NONMINORITY $742,362.50 2003 NONMINORITY $295,327.93 2005 NONMINORITY $7,200.00 2006 NONMINORITY $64,340.00 2007 NONMINORITY $230,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $6,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $8,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $2,400.00 2005 NONMINORITY $224,838.75 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $290,451.90 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $137,182.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $193,120.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $145,320.99 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $144,657.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $98,758.00 2005 NONMINORITY $348,446.74 2004 NONMINORITY $5,700.00 2005 NONMINORITY $413.40 2003 NONMINORITY $35,440.00 2002 NONMINORITY $145,600.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-21 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H560101C H601501C H584301C H595504C H526001C H614201C H584201C H525501C H636301C H636701C H591201C H644001C H637001C H527001C H614901C H524101C H457303C H646301C H416001C H549401C H648201C H390201C H436701C H648801C H636501C H643401C H615501C H637101C H524601C H554401C H637103C H678001C H610001C H683001C H655601C H527301C H524501C H490801C H635901C H613901C H613801C HX16101C H591301C H303001C H585501C H567601C H555801C H636601C H497201C H589801C H526701C H583901C H536601C H595501C H595508C H502501C H441502C SUB NAME CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $11,255.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $13,700.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $89,715.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $67,335.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $58,551.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $72,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $102,153.60 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $14,760.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $71,170.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $162,650.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $18,200.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $1,265.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $117,750.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $51,085.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $53,550.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $89,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $152,510.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,100.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $209,597.50 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $85,260.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $193,773.40 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $307,223.75 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $73,545.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $22,440.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $90,400.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $130,500.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,840.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $16,125.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $93,805.50 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $51,750.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $72,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $13,875.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $33,120.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $68,875.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,150.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $46,884.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,950.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $27,480.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $25,080.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $203,400.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $21,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,340.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,760.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $138,650.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $118,989.50 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $46,884.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $81,700.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $67,450.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $61,190.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $135,889.50 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $19,919.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $66,300.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $9,600.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,525.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,185.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $20,400.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $166,514.45 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-22 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H589901C H527701C H529901C H584601C H612701C H636301C H525401C H613301C H555601C H612801C H658401C H568603C H463901C H503703C H629501C H526501C H679101C H499102C H458401C H601401C H589701C H614401C H502801C H557201C H591101C H615301C H576801C H631001C H578101C H601502C H601501C H623901C H521001C H591301C H591301C H636601C H503703C H526001C H425601C H614601C H490602C H585901C SS57301C H555901C H428202C H390502C H460401C H681601C H210701C H545501C SL46601C H545501C H210701C H319003C H610001C H568604C H664901C SUB NAME CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CALDERON LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION LLC CALDERON LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION LLC CALDERON LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION LLC CALDERON LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION LLC CANO CONTRACTING INC CANO CONTRACTING INC CAPITAL EXCAVATING COMMERCIAL LLC CAPITAL EXCAVATING COMMERCIAL LLC CAPPS TRUCKING CAPPS TRUCKING CAPPS TRUCKING CAPPS TRUCKING CAPPS TRUCKING CAPPS TRUCKING CAPPS TRUCKING CAPPS TRUCKING CAPPS TRUCKING CAPPS TRUCKING CAPPS TRUCKING CAPPS TRUCKING CAREFREE LANDSCAPING INC CAREFREE LANDSCAPING INC CAREFREE LANDSCAPING INC CARLSON ELECTRIC AND WATERWORKS CARLSON MASONRY INC CARLSON MASONRY INC CARLSON MASONRY INC CARLSON MASONRY INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $29,260.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $23,025.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $10,245.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $56,350.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $155,565.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $71,170.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $16,500.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $112,890.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,852.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $37,710.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $43,654.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $1,320.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $10,162.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $35,765.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $8,655.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,528.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $19,470.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $67,250.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $106,750.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $129,710.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,800.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $41,300.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $43,215.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $23,225.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $42,860.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $38,060.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $14,870.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $1,207.75 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $19,410.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $12,603.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $60,219.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $77,744.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $270,270.10 2005 NONMINORITY C $10,661.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $10,798.75 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $27,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $1,204,144.01 2004 NONMINORITY C $40,041.46 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $31,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $129,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $136,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $111,944.88 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $65,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $16,500.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $136,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $136,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $190,400.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $9,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $88,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $106,507.88 2006 NONMINORITY C $34,776.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $106,507.88 2006 NONMINORITY C $62,410.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $689,500.16 2002 NONMINORITY C $63,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $873,120.40 2005 NONMINORITY C $2,462,702.40 2006 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-23 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H578101C H591201C H578201C H578301C H595506C H591501C H601501C H591101C H568603C H584501C H341401C H210701C H319003C H502801C H463901C H578201C H591501C H538101C H591101C H591301C H568604C H578301C H541701C H615501C H592401C SH27301C H541701C H568604C H510601C H576701C H643401C H578201C H617801C H595502C H670201C H560101C H568603C H601501C H664901C H458401C H591201C H521001C H635701C H390201C H610001C H378401C H600001C H581701C H341401C H341401C H390201C H636601C H537002C SB40701C H525401C H563001C H557201C SUB NAME CARLSON MASONRY INC CARLSON MASONRY INC CARLSON MASONRY INC CARLSON MASONRY INC CARLSON MASONRY INC CARLSON MASONRY INC CARLSON MASONRY INC CARLSON MASONRY INC CARLSON MASONRY INC CAROTHER STRUCTURAL CONCRETE INC CAROTHERS ENVIRONMENTAL LLC CARPETS OF DALTON MILL OUTLET INC CARSON CONSTRUCTION INC CARSON CONSTRUCTION INC CARSON CONSTRUCTION INC CARSON SAWCUTTING CARSON SAWCUTTING CARSON SAWCUTTING CARSON SAWCUTTING CARSON SAWCUTTING CARSON SAWCUTTING CARSON SAWCUTTING CARSON SAWCUTTING CASE FOUNDATION CO CASE FOUNDATION CO CASE FOUNDATION CO CASE FOUNDATION CO CASE FOUNDATION CO CASE FOUNDATION CO CASE FOUNDATION CO CASE FOUNDATION CO CASE FOUNDATION CO CASE FOUNDATION CO CASE FOUNDATION CO CASE FOUNDATION CO CASE FOUNDATION CO CASE FOUNDATION CO CASE FOUNDATION CO CASE FOUNDATION CO CASE FOUNDATION CO CASE FOUNDATION CO CASE FOUNDATION CO CASH TRANSPORTATION LLC CASH TRANSPORTATION LLC CASTLE ERECTORS LLC CASTRO ENGINEERING CORP CEMROCK LANDSCAPE INC CENTER CUTS LLC CENTRAL AZ GRADING AND PAVING LLC CENTRAL AZ GRADING AND PAVING LLC CHARLIE ORONA TRUCKING CHOLLA PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE INC CHRISTOPHERS CONCRETE PUMPING CLAYCOMB ROCKWELL WOODSON ASSOC CLAYCOMB ROCKWELL WOODSON ASSOC CLAYCOMB ROCKWELL WOODSON ASSOC COLLUM TRUCKING GALLUP TRUCKING SERVICES SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $665,695.26 2004 NONMINORITY C $420,819.41 2005 NONMINORITY C $4,352,155.85 2006 NONMINORITY C $3,139,796.94 2006 NONMINORITY C $252,068.44 2005 NONMINORITY C $3,348,836.50 2004 NONMINORITY C $36,720.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $5,359,526.90 2005 NONMINORITY C $800,689.12 2004 NONMINORITY C $44,524.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $5,400.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $6,745.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $437,097.35 2002 NONMINORITY C $22,312.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $123,092.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $5,585.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $1,129.40 2004 NONMINORITY C $3,243.60 2004 NONMINORITY C $5,998.40 2005 NONMINORITY C $3,987.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $2,416.20 2005 NONMINORITY C $4,850.28 2006 NONMINORITY C $12,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $104,140.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $100,420.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $91,020.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $95,400.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $855,983.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $599,230.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $933,940.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $10,004,250.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $1,687,115.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $622,868.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $80,392.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $58,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $259,012.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $595,750.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $165,528.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $474,217.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $387,120.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $120,780.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $73,700.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $19,200.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $12,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $66,924.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $6,875.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $173,482.50 2004 NONMINORITY C $2,064.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $9,620.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $19,990.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $9,600.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $27,300.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $20,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $21,500.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $12,080.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $236,480.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $99,613.00 2003 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-24 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H578301C H554401C H576801C H466203C HX15801C SB40701C H581701C H538101C SS50001C H210701C SS49101C H541701C H578101C H578201C H608201C H568604C H529901C H497201C H375301C H635401C H633601C H622801C H576701C H591101C H460401C H415901C SB36701C H552901C H591601C H550601C H557101C SS49901C H510401C H545501C H557201C SB36401C H591501C H556601C H639201C H670201C H600001C H549401C H540201C H625901C H649301C H595544C H319003C H527901C H425601C H460301C H490801C H633101C H631001C H591301C H643401C H545501C H591201C SUB NAME COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMMERCIAL SHOTCRETE INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $3,186,180.40 2006 NONMINORITY $8,740.00 2006 NONMINORITY $1,100,783.00 2004 NONMINORITY $1,595,793.00 2007 NONMINORITY $13,600.00 2006 NONMINORITY $93,600.00 2003 NONMINORITY $115,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY $148,800.00 2004 NONMINORITY $8,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY $98,600.00 2005 NONMINORITY $39,900.00 2003 NONMINORITY $55,500.00 2003 NONMINORITY $252,612.00 2004 NONMINORITY $6,386,344.90 2006 NONMINORITY $52,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $69,220.00 2005 NONMINORITY $67,800.00 2002 NONMINORITY $2,045,931.00 2003 NONMINORITY $586,023.21 2002 NONMINORITY $37,250.00 2006 NONMINORITY $44,856.00 2007 NONMINORITY $12,900.00 2006 NONMINORITY $246,590.00 2005 NONMINORITY $252,150.00 2005 NONMINORITY $234,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $77,540.00 2002 NONMINORITY $6,680.00 2004 NONMINORITY $5,200.00 2004 NONMINORITY $87,342.67 2004 NONMINORITY $355,160.00 2003 NONMINORITY $325,650.50 2004 NONMINORITY $8,100.00 2006 NONMINORITY $21,430.00 2005 NONMINORITY $19,380.00 2006 NONMINORITY $128,417.30 2003 NONMINORITY $611,992.00 2004 NONMINORITY $114,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $1,227,305.00 2005 NONMINORITY $6,280.00 2006 NONMINORITY $11,220.00 2007 NONMINORITY $588,700.10 2004 NONMINORITY $2,298,856.00 2004 NONMINORITY $440,862.00 2002 NONMINORITY $76,800.00 2004 NONMINORITY $396,631.00 2006 NONMINORITY $7,650.00 2005 NONMINORITY $228,854.00 2002 NONMINORITY $6,600.00 2002 NONMINORITY $242,770.00 2003 NONMINORITY $45,420.00 2007 NONMINORITY $77,027.50 2002 NONMINORITY $20,500.00 2007 NONMINORITY $63,800.00 2005 NONMINORITY $144,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $10,640,008.59 2007 NONMINORITY $19,380.00 2006 NONMINORITY $2,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-25 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H531901C H386803C H563001C H210701C H613901C H644001C H521001C H463801C H458401C H576701C H613801C H595544C H563901C H526501C H463901C H600001C H463201C H636701C H622801C H574501C H670201C H554401C H648601C H601501C SS44701C SS45101C SS50901C H407601C H436701C HX13702C H563001C H564201C H531901C H561801C H545501C H545501C H617801C H605101C H631001C HX17401C H591301C H643401C H458401C H614801C H644001C H639201C H463901C H578301C H614901C H595504C H622801C H555901C H603101C H568603C H601502C H643401C H572201C SUB NAME COMMERCIAL SHOTCRETE INC COMMERCIAL SHOTCRETE INC COMMERCIAL SHOTCRETE INC COMPLETE ELECTRICAL SERVICES A DBA COMPLETE ELECTRIC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONFORMA TECH CONFORMA TECH CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $7,953.40 2003 NONMINORITY C $30,350.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $30,350.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $166,326.90 2005 NONMINORITY C $16,053.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $244,296.23 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $233,245.99 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $91,592.50 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $430,597.40 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $18,749.30 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $15,144.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $53,080.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $323,747.70 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $36,089.10 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $72,041.50 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $152,357.95 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $91,592.50 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $110,500.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $97,040.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $13,254.50 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $163,478.93 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $486,473.80 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $28,038.75 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $248,308.33 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $214,731.05 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $57,804.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $473,914.70 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $40,592.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $51,989.80 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $45,597.59 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $897,218.90 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $105,315.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $42,083.50 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $567,970.60 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $114,480.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $114,480.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $1,556,414.30 2007 NONMINORITY C $45,198.21 2006 NONMINORITY C $14,398.46 2005 NONMINORITY C $6,304.74 2007 NONMINORITY C $6,363,915.30 2004 NONMINORITY C $8,197,821.09 2007 NONMINORITY C $950,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $91,290.84 2005 NONMINORITY C $214,296.45 2006 NONMINORITY C $179,123.92 2006 NONMINORITY C $72,579.57 2003 NONMINORITY C $4,004,306.59 2006 NONMINORITY C $190,205.40 2005 NONMINORITY C $19,762.44 2007 NONMINORITY C $50,492.40 2006 NONMINORITY C $4,800.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $153,378.47 2006 NONMINORITY C $2,992,015.38 2004 NONMINORITY C $129,835.72 2005 NONMINORITY C $83,500.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $754,619.60 2002 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-26 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H564201C SH28601C H586701C H591501C H458201C H319003C H563001C H516301C H643401C H568603C H578101C H591101C H578301C H591301C H458401C H510401C H528206C H590001C H610001C H601501C H625901C H521001C H591001C H463201C H463301C H541701C H644001C H649301C H210701C H532801C H460301C H633601C H460301C SS50801C H458101C H444401C H578301C H595544C H483102C H613901C H636501C H584201C H613801C H502501C H606501C H524601C H584701C H652701C H636701C H637001C H585201C SL46601C H610401C H587601C H423901C H303802C H528203C SUB NAME CONTINENTAL LIGHTING & CONTRACTING INC CONTINENTAL LIGHTING & CONTRACTING INC CONTINENTAL LIGHTING & CONTRACTING INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC COPPER CREEK PIPLINES AND EXCAVATION LLC COPPERSTATE DRILLING AND SUPPLY INC CORBIN ELECTRIC SERVICE LLC CORKCO CORKCO CORNERSTONE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING INC CORRAL DYBAS GROUP INC CORTES ENGINEERING INC CORTES ENGINEERING INC COSS WILKINS ENTERPRISES INC CRANE RENTAL SERVICE CROSS BROS CONTRACTING INC CROSS BROS CONTRACTING INC CROSS BROS CONTRACTING INC CROSS BROS CONTRACTING INC CROSS BROS CONTRACTING INC CROSS BROS CONTRACTING INC CROSS BROS CONTRACTING INC CROSS BROS CONTRACTING INC CROSS BROS CONTRACTING INC CURB SERVICE INC CURB SERVICE INC CURB SERVICE INC CURB SERVICE INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $242,716.40 2003 NONMINORITY $106,167.30 2006 NONMINORITY $38,756.80 2004 NONMINORITY $1,543,057.90 2004 NONMINORITY $84,412.00 2005 NONMINORITY $824,251.40 2002 NONMINORITY $747,249.00 2003 NONMINORITY $586,232.83 2003 NONMINORITY $15,995,818.55 2007 NONMINORITY $1,320,397.60 2004 NONMINORITY $1,852,911.60 2004 NONMINORITY $2,536,574.45 2005 NONMINORITY $3,663,762.30 2006 NONMINORITY $2,331,095.50 2004 NONMINORITY $1,099,626.50 2006 NONMINORITY $478,829.00 2005 NONMINORITY $1,182,799.00 2006 NONMINORITY $286,334.50 2006 NONMINORITY $2,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $858,682.50 2005 NONMINORITY $394,518.00 2004 NONMINORITY $494,191.40 2005 NONMINORITY $1,861,636.65 2003 NONMINORITY $1,041,320.00 2002 NONMINORITY $1,041,320.00 2002 NONMINORITY $554,898.30 2003 NONMINORITY $875,223.00 2006 NONMINORITY $33,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $3,576.45 2005 NONMINORITY $15,963.00 2002 NONMINORITY $10,210.00 2007 NONMINORITY $6,800.00 2007 NONMINORITY $12,850.00 2007 NONMINORITY $7,051.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $69,000.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $70,000.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $32,118.34 2006 NONMINORITY $10,522.20 2005 NONMINORITY $1,297,358.00 2002 NONMINORITY $223,289.00 2005 NONMINORITY $24,200.00 2006 NONMINORITY $40,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $231,711.50 2005 NONMINORITY $25,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $198,609.00 2003 NONMINORITY $88,230.00 2003 NONMINORITY $72,498.50 2004 NONMINORITY $5,375.00 2007 NONMINORITY $40,560.00 2007 NONMINORITY $40,624.00 2007 NONMINORITY $7,780.00 2005 NONMINORITY $1,683.00 2003 NONMINORITY $1,050.00 2003 NONMINORITY $1,360.60 2002 NONMINORITY $2,350.00 2005 NONMINORITY $1,800.00 2002 NONMINORITY $740.00 2003 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-27 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H429201C H595503C H527801C H545501C H622801C H434701C H605101C H600001C H458201C H458201C H319003C H556301C H545501C H510401C H516301C H528206C H510401C H643401C H525501C H585301C H645101C H554401C H341401C H561801C H670201C H618301C SS61001C H678001C H390201C H635701C H560101C H591001C H648801C H637101C H615101C H637103C H568603C H560101C H468101C H407601C H612801C H626401C H614901C H664901C H584701C H407601C H615501C H554401C H644001C H460401C H580401C H526701C H526801C H407601C H410401C H612201C H638801C SUB NAME CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC D & R STEEL LLC D & R STEEL LLC D & R STEEL LLC D & R STEEL LLC D & R STEEL LLC D & R STEEL LLC D & R STEEL LLC D & S EXPRESS INC D & S EXPRESS INC D B A CONSTRUCTION INC D B A CONSTRUCTION INC D B A CONSTRUCTION INC D B A CONSTRUCTION INC D B A CONSTRUCTION INC D B A CONSTRUCTION INC D B A CONSTRUCTION INC D B A CONSTRUCTION INC D B A CONSTRUCTION INC D B A CONSTRUCTION INC DBA DBA INC D B A CONSTRUCTION INC DBA DBA INC D B A CONSTRUCTION INC DBA DBA INC D B A CONSTRUCTION INC DBA DBA INC D B A CONSTRUCTION INC DBA DBA INC D B A CONSTRUCTION INC DBA DBA NC D J S COMPANIES INC D J S COMPANIES INC D P TRUCK SOLUTIONS INC D P TRUCK SOLUTIONS INC D W LUSK CONTRACTING CO DAHL ROBINS & ASSOC DAHL ROBINS & ASSOC DAHL ROBINS & ASSOC DAL MOLIN EXAVATING INC DAL MOLIN EXAVATING INC DAVE CARTER PAINTING DAVES DRILLING LLC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $4,997.00 2003 NONMINORITY $1,596.00 2004 NONMINORITY $500.00 2002 NONMINORITY $54,205.50 2006 NONMINORITY $1,264.85 2006 NONMINORITY $2,688.90 2003 NONMINORITY $3,487.50 2006 NONMINORITY $2,340.00 2004 NONMINORITY $32,400.00 2005 NONMINORITY $5,132.88 2005 NONMINORITY $8,205.36 2002 NONMINORITY $358.00 2004 NONMINORITY $54,205.50 2006 NONMINORITY $1,700.00 2005 NONMINORITY $5,229.00 2003 NONMINORITY $3,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $29,826.00 2005 NONMINORITY $15,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $1,160.00 2002 NONMINORITY $1,350.00 2004 NONMINORITY $2,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $648,215.67 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $441,094.45 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $70,980.82 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $89,773.37 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $117,392.75 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $52,636.80 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $12,931.50 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $12,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY $19,200.00 2006 NONMINORITY $409,304.87 2004 NONMINORITY $1,029,925.15 2003 NONMINORITY $294,778.00 2005 NONMINORITY $136,933.50 2003 NONMINORITY $198,380.00 2005 NONMINORITY $1,196,761.00 2004 NONMINORITY $721,123.95 2004 NONMINORITY $4,876.00 2004 NONMINORITY $317,370.00 2003 NONMINORITY $47,800.00 2004 NONMINORITY $6,120.00 2005 NONMINORITY $39,629.50 2004 NONMINORITY $12,240.00 2005 NONMINORITY $189,503.00 2006 NONMINORITY $20,425.00 2004 NONMINORITY $5,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $6,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $51,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $6,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY $21,600.00 2003 NONMINORITY $7,125.00 2002 NONMINORITY $10,800.00 2005 NONMINORITY $7,125.00 2002 NONMINORITY $307,200.00 2004 NONMINORITY $66,123.20 2002 NONMINORITY $8,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $2,275.00 2005 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-28 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H532001C H552901C H578301C H666601C H622101C H545501C H545501C H303802C H237805C H614801C H637001C H652701C H614401C H631001C H466203C H516301C H545501C H545501C H667001C H423901C H341401C H643401C H434501C H516301C H434701C H585801C H524301C H488601C H447201C H637103C H526201C H589701C H584901C H610401C H586001C H629401C H610301C H629501C H600001C H586301C H416001C H463901C SS50901C H460401C H527201C H587601C H425601C H659001C H458101C H441502C H497201C H678001C H510601C H537002C H457303C SS49901C H502501C SUB NAME DAVES DRILLING LLC DAVES DRILLING LLC DAVES DRILLING LLC DAVES DRILLING LLC DECORATIVE MASONRY INC DELEON PAINTING INC DELEON PAINTING INC DELEON PAINTING, INC. DESERT HILLS ELECTRIC DESERT SEEDERS LLC DESERT SEEDERS LLC DESERT SEEDERS LLC DESERT SEEDERS LLC DESERT SEEDERS LLC DESERT SEEDERS LLC DESERT TRUCKING INC DESERT TRUCKING INC DESERT TRUCKING INC DESERT TRUCKING INC DESERT TRUCKING INC DESIERTO VERDE DBA MONTAGE DESIERTO VERDE LLC DESIGN MODULARS INC DEWITT BROTHERS INC DIGGUM EXCAVATING INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DON NORMAN SURVEYING DON PETERSON ENGINEERS INC DBA DPE CONSTRUCTION DON PETERSON ENGINEERS INC DBA DPE CONSTRUCTION DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $5,200.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $6,960.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $12,300.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $6,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $22,297.25 2004 NONMINORITY C $209,234.20 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $209,234.20 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $10,457.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $9,352.61 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $40,080.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $32,160.75 2007 NONMINORITY C $3,820.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $28,503.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $12,102.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $622,028.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $40,020.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $152,721.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $152,721.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $800.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,380.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $1,119,731.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $354,500.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $72,800.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $13,998.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $47,031.34 2003 NONMINORITY C $4,692.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $100,099.12 2002 NONMINORITY C $139,107.78 2002 NONMINORITY C $15,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $39,900.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $28,231.65 2002 NONMINORITY C $4,500.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $40,610.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $90,764.74 2003 NONMINORITY C $28,866.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $54,384.10 2004 NONMINORITY C $6,741.50 2003 NONMINORITY C $66,127.40 2005 NONMINORITY C $10,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $5,400.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $3,200.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $24,332.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $2,200.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $4,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $82,411.42 2002 NONMINORITY C $3,610.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $15,700.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $1,950.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $173,840.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $1,164,835.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $14,911.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $4,378.64 2007 NONMINORITY C $188,456.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $14,750.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $12,650.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $4,197.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $6,480.00 2002 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-29 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H458401C H591101C H578101C H617801C H584401C H649301C H613801C H541701C H576801C H644001C H554401C H341401C H416001C H591201C H521001C SS53401C H670201C SS49101C H625901C H532801C H510401C H341401C H510601C H463901C SS46701C H664901C H591501C H649301C SB36701C H591001C H528203C H458401C H458401C H545501C H545501C H643401C H666601C H425601C H595544C H625901C H568603C H664901C H538101C H568604C H600001C H585201C H458201C H468101C H560101C H410401C H631001C H468101C H615501C H644001C H610001C H635701C H591101C SUB NAME DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOWN UNDER CONSTRUCTION INC DOWN UNDER CONSTRUCTION INC DUFF INC DUNN DEL RE STEEL DUNN DEL RE STEEL DUNN DEL RE STEEL DUNN DEL RE STEEL DUNN DEL RE STEEL DUST DEVIL CONTRACTING DUST DEVIL CONTRACTING DW TRUCKING E R HAWKINS LLC E R HAWKINS LLC E R HAWKINS LLC E R HAWKINS LLC EAGLE ROCK UNDERGROUND LLC EARTH REINFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS EARTH REINFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS EARTH REINFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS EARTH REINFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS EARTH REINFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS EARTH REINFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS EARTH REINFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS EARTH REINFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS EARTH REINFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS EARTH REINFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS EARTH REINFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS EARTHBLEND CUSTOM LANDSCAPES INC EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD DBA REVEGETATION SERVICES ECHOLS GRADING & EXCAVATING ECOLOGY CONTROL INDUSTRIES INC ECOLOGY CONTROL INDUSTRIES INC ECOLOGY CONTROL INDUSTRIES INC ECOLOGY CONTROL INDUSTRIES INC ECOPATH CONTRACTING LLC DBA BLENDTEC EGGEN WEED CONTROL SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $33,375.00 2006 NONMINORITY $218,200.00 2005 NONMINORITY $102,574.00 2004 NONMINORITY $19,400.00 2007 NONMINORITY $3,725.00 2005 NONMINORITY $26,900.00 2006 NONMINORITY $18,250.00 2005 NONMINORITY $9,750.00 2003 NONMINORITY $10,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $5,625.00 2006 NONMINORITY $27,250.00 2006 NONMINORITY $180,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $34,455.00 2003 NONMINORITY $86,950.00 2005 NONMINORITY $165,450.00 2005 NONMINORITY $1,790.00 2007 NONMINORITY $11,775.00 2007 NONMINORITY $6,170.00 2003 NONMINORITY $128,190.00 2004 NONMINORITY $6,300.00 2002 NONMINORITY $27,450.00 2005 NONMINORITY $5,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY $15,250.00 2006 NONMINORITY $9,375.00 2003 NONMINORITY $10,967.49 2005 NONMINORITY $374,634.70 2006 NONMINORITY $2,726,058.41 2004 NONMINORITY $618,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $30,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $279,360.25 2003 NONMINORITY $13,640.00 2003 NONMINORITY $10,400.00 2006 NONMINORITY $108,557.00 2006 NONMINORITY $30,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $30,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $923,320.19 2007 NONMINORITY $431,345.00 2007 NONMINORITY $471,491.50 2003 NONMINORITY $27,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $498,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $21,200.00 2004 NONMINORITY $596,391.55 2006 NONMINORITY $192,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY $230,821.20 2005 NONMINORITY $272,551.00 2004 NONMINORITY $31,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $334,999.80 2005 NONMINORITY $34,139.00 2003 NONMINORITY $8,800.00 2004 NONMINORITY $3,178.00 2002 NONMINORITY $8,831.00 2005 NONMINORITY $2,030.00 2003 NONMINORITY $3,540.00 2006 NONMINORITY $1,890.00 2006 NONMINORITY $29,150.00 2003 NONMINORITY $47,200.00 2006 NONMINORITY $800.00 2005 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-30 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H591001C H595502C H545501C H605301C H605101C HX17401C H545501C SS50801C H625901C H578201C H592401C H534801C H591101C H521001C H568604C H578101C H550601C H576701C H603101C SS44701C H617801C H434701C H643401C H664901C H578101C H678001C SS49101C H591201C H568604C H602701C H679101C H510601C H511801C H636601C H706001C H590001C H644001C SS49301C H591301C H601502C H578201C H678001C H529901C H591201C H601501C H463601C H463201C H625901C SH27801C H670201C H578101C H617801C H591101C H541701C H591501C H644001C H661501C SUB NAME EGGEN WEED CONTROL ELECTRICAL CONCEPTS INC ELECTRICAL CONCEPTS INC ELECTRICAL CONCEPTS INC ELECTRICAL CONCEPTS INC ELECTRICAL CONCEPTS INC ELECTRICAL CONCEPTS INC ELECTRICAL CONCEPTS INC ENDO STEEL INC ENDO STEEL INC ENDO STEEL INC ENDO STEEL INC ENDO STEEL INC ENDO STEEL INC ENDO STEEL INC ENDO STEEL INC ENDO STEEL INC ENDO STEEL INC ENVIRO DRILL INC ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE INC ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE INC ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES INC ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES INC ENVIROSYSTEMS CORP ENVIROSYSTEMS CORP ENVIROSYSTEMS CORP ENVIROSYSTEMS CORP ENVIROSYSTEMS CORP ENVIROSYSTEMS CORP ENVIROSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT INC ENVIROSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT INC ENVIROSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT INC ENVIROSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT INC ENVIROSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EVERGREEN SPRAY SERVICES INC EVERGREEN SPRAY SERVICES INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $15,600.00 2003 NONMINORITY $197,178.00 2003 NATIVE AMERICAN $529,472.00 2006 NATIVE AMERICAN $142,500.00 2005 NATIVE AMERICAN $6,250.00 2006 NATIVE AMERICAN $148,233.00 2007 NATIVE AMERICAN $529,472.00 2006 NATIVE AMERICAN $182,964.70 2006 NATIVE AMERICAN $1,422,687.61 2004 NATIVE AMERICAN $11,031,019.53 2006 NATIVE AMERICAN $1,172,289.59 2005 NATIVE AMERICAN $747,970.65 2003 NATIVE AMERICAN $4,748,104.80 2005 NATIVE AMERICAN $1,162,043.65 2005 NATIVE AMERICAN $8,694,785.11 2005 NATIVE AMERICAN $1,686,092.41 2004 NATIVE AMERICAN $176,222.00 2003 NATIVE AMERICAN $721,267.15 2005 NATIVE AMERICAN $6,515.00 2006 NONMINORITY $10,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $74,376.00 2007 NONMINORITY $13,995.00 2003 NONMINORITY $1,020.00 2007 NONMINORITY $56,495.00 2006 NONMINORITY $42,120.00 2004 NONMINORITY $20,865.00 2007 NONMINORITY $43,298.00 2003 NONMINORITY $129,150.00 2005 NONMINORITY $128,435.00 2005 NONMINORITY $18,920.50 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN $12,327.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN $90,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN $10,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN $60,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN $40,635.00 2007 NONMINORITY $27,483.60 2006 NONMINORITY $55,600.00 2006 NONMINORITY $5,725.00 2004 NONMINORITY $22,444.20 2004 NONMINORITY $36,153.00 2005 NONMINORITY $180,883.80 2006 NONMINORITY $31,779.00 2007 NONMINORITY $15,760.00 2002 NONMINORITY $111,213.00 2005 NONMINORITY $19,103.10 2005 NONMINORITY $9,900.00 2002 NONMINORITY $28,131.30 2002 NONMINORITY $13,911.30 2004 NONMINORITY $139,194.00 2004 NONMINORITY $46,980.00 2007 NONMINORITY $42,339.60 2004 NONMINORITY $40,729.50 2007 NONMINORITY $91,200.00 2005 NONMINORITY $7,068.60 2003 NONMINORITY $42,168.40 2004 NONMINORITY $1,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN $1,957.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-31 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H521001C H595501C H563901C H407601C H407601C H657701C H527201C H610001C H666601C H592401C H563001C H564201C H534801C H636301C H636301C H483102C H510601C H591101C H625901C H447201C H591501C H578201C H591201C H538101C H503703C SH28201C H526901C H666601C H664901C H489301C H635701C H390201C H584501C H614801C H525001C H614101C H303001C H584301C H497201C H527001C H527701C H584601C H489301C H447201C H601502C H636501C H610001C H548301C H584801C HX16101C H468101C H526001C H341401C H615501C H576701C H644001C H560101C SUB NAME EXTREME CONTRACTING & TRUCKING SERVICES LLC EXTREME CONTRACTING & TRUCKING SERVICES LLC EXTREME CONTRACTING & TRUCKING SERVICES LLC EXTREME CONTRACTING & TRUCKING SERVICES LLC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC FALCON CONTRACTING INC FALCON CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FARRELL TRUCKING FELIX CONSTRUCTION CO FELIX CONSTRUCTION CO FELIX CONSTRUCTION CO FELIX CONSTRUCTION CO FELIX CONSTRUCTION CO FELIX CONSTRUCTION CO FELIX CONSTRUCTION CO FENCE DEPOT INC FENCING BY S K L L C FIELD LINING SYSTEMS INC FIERRO UTILITY CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC FIERRO UTILITY CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC FIREBIRD TRUCKING FIREBIRD TRUCKING FIREBIRD TRUCKING FIREBIRD TRUCKING FIREBIRD TRUCKING FIREBIRD TRUCKING FIREBIRD TRUCKING FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $13,400.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $30,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,200.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,845,567.35 2004 NONMINORITY C $70,116.25 2007 NONMINORITY C $116,405.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $3,726,974.50 2003 NONMINORITY C $62,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $4,042,017.50 2005 NONMINORITY C $4,196,424.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $2,434,195.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $2,287,359.90 2003 NONMINORITY C $1,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $1,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $55,900.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $5,600.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $3,023,540.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $511,150.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $903,400.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $2,197,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $4,290,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $2,127,600.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $2,835,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $63,889.50 2004 NONMINORITY C $8,640.75 2007 NONMINORITY C $62,182.60 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $600,000.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $1,769,897.95 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $6,200.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $19,200.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $12,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $15,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $9,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $7,200.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $7,200.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $1,257,445.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $66,830.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $178,438.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $584,011.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $138,076.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $422,670.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $717,576.50 2004 NONMINORITY C $1,112,206.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $226,632.35 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $308,558.50 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $1,375.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $25,688.50 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $186,542.85 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,845.50 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $193,987.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $28,969.05 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $403,626.10 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $196,118.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $39,003.50 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $79,419.50 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $66,644.40 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-32 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H578301C H648201C H466203C H526201C SB36401C H532801C H534801C H563001C H510601C H521001C H649301C SB36701C H578101C H436701C H447201C H655601C H568603C H617801C H564201C H524401C H386803C SH27301C H678001C H664901C H524101C H537002C H635401C H664901C H599901C H510601C H576801C H390201C H639201C H390201C H611501C H584701C H415901C H375301C H629401C H503706C H502801C H643401C SS49401C H585201C H678001C H510401C H319003C H631001C H658401C SH28201C H576301C H603101C H605301C H576801C H625901C H649301C H591101C SUB NAME FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FLAGSTAFF CINDER SALES FLAGSTAFF CINDER SALES FLAGSTAFF CINDER SALES FLATTOP TIRE & TRUCK SERVICE FLATTOUT TRUCKING FLATTOUT TRUCKING FOCUS CIVIL INC FOCUS CIVIL INC FORESIGHT ENGINEERING INC FORESIGHT ENGINEERING INC FORESIGHT ENGINEERING INC FORESIGHT ENGINEERING INC FORESIGHT ENGINEERING INC FORTIS NETWORKS INC FORTIS NETWORKS INC FULL CIRCLE ENGINEERING INC G U Y CONSTRUCTION LLC GARCIA METAL PRODUCTS INC GEOMECHANICS SOUTHWEST INC GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES GIL S DRILLING & EXCAVATING INC GIL S DRILLING & EXCAVATING INC GIL S DRILLING & EXCAVATING INC GIL S DRILLING & EXCAVATING INC GIL S DRILLING & EXCAVATING INC GIL S DRILLING & EXCAVATING INC GIL S DRILLING & EXCAVATING INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $157,570.45 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $122,070.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $752,873.70 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $22,040.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $42,474.50 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $25,123.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $220,327.45 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $375,885.35 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $403,567.70 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $736,104.75 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $295,327.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $47,943.75 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $225,596.75 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $114,295.45 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $507,088.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $104,092.50 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $102,029.20 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $539,438.85 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $102,683.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $10,790.25 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $375,885.35 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $42,474.50 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $549,688.90 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $261,684.40 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $145,779.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $149,580.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $45,843.75 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $524,717.30 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $1,200.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $33,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $122,400.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $3,200.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $8,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $12,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $71,180.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $57,696.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $65,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $49,950.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $5,125.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $62,750.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $82,672.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $144,974.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $121,652.21 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $100,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $834,142.50 2007 NONMINORITY C $15,163.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $11,684.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $40,790.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $29,400.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $17,500.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $21,336.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $263,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $6,192.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $354,881.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $49,184.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $48,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $168,680.00 2005 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-33 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H532001C H610001C H638801C H643401C H407601C H623901C H613901C H554401C H584301C H613801C H503703C H636301C H436701C H636301C H679101C H527701C H615301C H636601C H648201C H555801C H441502C H426101C H643401C HX09101C H648801C H378401C H610301C H525601C H516301C H629401C H610401C H543101C H458201C H303802C H526201C H636001C H589701C H451001C H510401C H587601C H595503C H524501C H584601C H468101C H637102C H648201C H636001C H586201C SL45001C H605301C H590001C H551901C H605001C H569701C SS50801C H660301C SS45101C SUB NAME GIL S DRILLING & EXCAVATING INC GIL S DRILLING & EXCAVATING INC GIL S DRILLING & EXCAVATING INC GIL S DRILLING & EXCAVATING INC GILA REDI MIX INC GILBERT TECHNICAL SERVICES GILLESPIE TRUCKING GILLESPIE TRUCKING GILLESPIE TRUCKING GILLESPIE TRUCKING GILLESPIE TRUCKING GILLESPIE TRUCKING GILLESPIE TRUCKING GILLESPIE TRUCKING GILLESPIE TRUCKING GILLESPIE TRUCKING GILLESPIE TRUCKING GILLESPIE TRUCKING GILLESPIE TRUCKING GILLESPIE TRUCKING GILLESPIE TRUCKING GORDLEY DESIGN GROUP GOUDY ENGINEERING INC GRADYS QUALITY EXCAVATING INC GRADYS QUALITY EXCAVATING INC GRAVEL EXPRESS INC GRAVEL EXPRESS INC GRAVEL EXPRESS INC GRAVEL EXPRESS INC GRAVEL EXPRESS INC GRAVEL EXPRESS INC GRAVEL EXPRESS INC GRAVEL EXPRESS INC GRAVEL EXPRESS INC GRAVEL EXPRESS INC GRAVEL EXPRESS INC GRAVEL EXPRESS INC GRAVEL EXPRESS INC GRAVEL EXPRESS INC GRAVEL EXPRESS INC GREAT AMERICAN SWEEPING GREAT AMERICAN SWEEPING GREAT AMERICAN SWEEPING GREAT AMERICAN SWEEPING GREAT AMERICAN SWEEPING GREAT AMERICAN SWEEPING GREAT AMERICAN SWEEPING GREAT AMERICAN SWEEPING GREEN EARTH L C GREEN LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION INC GREEN LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION INC GREEN LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION INC GREEN LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION INC GREEN LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION INC GREEN LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION INC GREEN LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION INC GREEN LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $5,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $457,920.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $7,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $15,700.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $25,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $22,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $1,408,479.95 2005 NONMINORITY C $35,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $17,462.25 2004 NONMINORITY C $232,700.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $62,700.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $7,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $36,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $7,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $121,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $23,520.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $7,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $776,065.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $12,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $18,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $61,600.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $9,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,543.50 2007 NONMINORITY C $1,350.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $13,623.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $50,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $5,616.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,940.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $57,624.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $52,650.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $93,385.25 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $36,212.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $114,380.61 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $37,800.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $191,174.10 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $7,020.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $39,256.20 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $840,640.40 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,440.30 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,305.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $4,799.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $20,880.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $348.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $20,010.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $32,902.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $650.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $1,730.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $47,579.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $84,069.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $50,958.75 2006 NONMINORITY C $86,261.20 2004 NONMINORITY C $48,465.50 2005 NONMINORITY C $47,001.30 2005 NONMINORITY C $32,508.85 2006 NONMINORITY C $123,290.40 2007 NONMINORITY C $81,054.70 2005 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-34 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # SS44701C H655601C H605301C H605101C H660301C H625901C H706001C H617801C H541701C SS50901C H610001C SS43601C H613301C H436701C H460301C H633601C H303802C H510601C H483102C H613701C H541701C H582301C SS42101C H210701C SS49801C H545501C H639201C H545501C H341401C H601502C H426101C H706001C H576801C H644001C H564201C H595504C H595506C H423901C H516301C H510401C H585001C H648601C H645101C H458201C H386803C H576701C H375301C H529901C H563001C H386803C H595501C H525601C H591501C H591201C SS49101C H664901C H637101C SUB NAME GREEN LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION INC GREEN LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION INC GREGOR & GRENIER ENGINEERING INC GREGOR ENGINEERING INC GREGOR ENGINEERING INC GRIMES TRUCKING GRIMES TRUCKING GRIMES TRUCKING GRIMES TRUCKING GRIMES TRUCKING & LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES INC GRIMES TRUCKING & LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES INC GRUBER INDUSTRIES H 2 0 ON WHEELS LLC H 2 0 ON WHEELS LLC H 2 O 2 GO H 2 O 2 GO HCPI H W JOHNSON INC H W JOHNSON INC HAN MAR ENERGY INC HAN MAR ENERGY INC HANDYMAN MAINTENANCE INC HANDYMAN MAINTENANCE INC HANDYMAN MAINTENANCE INC HARDCORE BORING LLC HARK DRILLING INC HARK DRILLING INC HARK DRILLING INC HARK DRILLING INC HARK DRILLING INC HARK DRILLING INC HARK DRILLING INC HARK DRILLING INC HARK DRILLING INC HARRIS ARIZONA REBAR INC HARRIS ARIZONA REBAR INC HARRIS ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP INC HARVEY TRUCKING INC HARVEY TRUCKING INC HARVEY TRUCKING INC HARVEY TRUCKING INC HAWKER & EVANS ASPHALT CO INC HAWKER & EVANS ASPHALT CO INC HAWKINS ENTERPRISES LLC HAWKINS ENTERPRISES LLC HAWKINS ENTERPRISES LLC HAWKINS ENTERPRISES LLC HAWKINS ENTERPRISES LLC HERITAGE LAND SURVEY & MAPPING INC HERITAGE LAND SURVEY & MAPPING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $238,017.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $30,160.10 2005 NONMINORITY C $6,460.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $13,195.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $8,310.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $19,400.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $68,960.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $255,050.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $14,500.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $1,800.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $15,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $180,768.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $21,600.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $50,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $5,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $8,400.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $2,834.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $966,610.57 2006 NONMINORITY C $408,499.60 2002 NONMINORITY C $79,350.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $357,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $25,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $20,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $182,539.08 2005 NONMINORITY C $9,990.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $274,175.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $133,860.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $274,175.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $32,151.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $15,803.60 2005 NONMINORITY C $488,505.28 2003 NONMINORITY C $70,340.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $30,640.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $166,487.50 2006 NONMINORITY C $218,938.26 2003 NONMINORITY C $19,762.44 2007 NONMINORITY C $5,625.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $20,840.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,120.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,280.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $61,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $1,300.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $1,236.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $21,157.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $38,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $15,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $72,557.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $14,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $23,480.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $23,480.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $88,004.05 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $532,783.45 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $821,870.07 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $21,600.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $85,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $219,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $315,072.45 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-35 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H463301C H595502C SS53401C H655601C H586201C H589601C H587601C H583901C H591001C H516301C H538101C H524801C H463201C H463801C HX17401C H568603C H610001C H648801C H591301C H524301C H585301C H637103C H643401C H510601C H633401C H599901C H635701C H614801C H390201C H633101C H563001C H681601C SS49801C H457303C H578101C H319003C H613801C H661501C H610001C H556601C H626401C H670201C H434501C H595544C H664901C H578301C H585101C H423901C H706001C H568603C H303802C H636001C SS45101C H568604C H516301C H466203C H545501C SUB NAME HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HIGH DESERT INVESTMENT CO HIGH DESERT INVESTMENT CO HIGH DESERT INVESTMENT CO HIGH PLAINS ENTERPRISES LLC HIGH PLAINS ENTERPRISES LLC HIGH PLAINS ENTERPRISES LLC HIGHLAND BENSON ASSOC HIGHWAY DISTRIBUTION SERVICES INC HITTY TRUCKING HOOK ENGINEERING INC HOPKINS FENCE CO HOPPER CO INC HOPPER CO INC HOPPER CO INC HOPPER CO INC HORIZONTAL BORING & TUNNELING INC HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $260.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $65,910.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $141,450.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $20,720.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,342.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $57,012.36 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $9,268.90 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $192,800.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $272,724.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $241,152.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $282,037.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $351,964.50 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $260.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $260.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $22,383.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $850,133.45 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $10,775.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $102,960.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $567,607.04 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $105,660.09 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $6,936.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $406,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $7,686,039.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $28,812.83 2006 NONMINORITY C $1,646.63 2007 NONMINORITY C $1,646.63 2007 NONMINORITY C $19,200.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $9,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $12,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $11,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $5,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $9,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $4,420.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $2,694.80 2002 NONMINORITY C $179,227.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $256,549.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $54,873.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $16,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $74,937.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $8,400.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $19,835.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $26,402.33 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $281,300.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $10,082.52 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $632,115.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $188,364.40 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $77,735.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $7,307.50 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $302,477.21 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $415,836.95 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $129,136.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $69,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,120.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $578,213.84 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $111,500.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $367,748.50 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $107,067.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-36 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H631001C H451001C H531901C H578101C H639201C H585301C H585601C H595506C H564201C H407601C H453501C H556101C H578201C H584701C H591501C H617801C H614901C H584401C H592401C H643401C H502501C H584501C H610001C H545501C H637001C H540201C H458401C H611501C H538101C H618301C H613901C H554401C H549401C H561801C H458301C H635901C HX09101C H436101C H595501C H591301C SS46701C HX11801C H595544C H531901C H497201C SS49901C H615301C H551901C H586001C H590001C H649301C SS50001C H605001C SS50801C H603101C SS57301C H648601C SUB NAME HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HOWE PRECAST HUNSAKER CONCRETE INC HUNSAKER CONCRETE INC HUNSAKER CONCRETE INC HUNSAKER CONCRETE INC HUNTER CONTRACTING CO HUNTER CONTRACTING CO HURRICANE HOLES HURRICANE HOLES HURRICANE HOLES HURRICANE HOLES INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $29,832.50 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $12,550.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,902.50 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $45,350.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $171,700.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $12,699.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $17,936.40 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $48,501.60 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $43,462.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $8,750.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $47,268.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $13,480.75 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $260,770.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $14,321.40 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $58,049.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $441,542.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $242,530.42 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $44,403.50 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $194,465.14 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,393,272.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $30,202.40 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $7,540.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $896,250.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $107,067.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $72,440.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $29,825.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $479,014.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $46,350.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $106,710.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $264,462.50 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $67,908.50 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $291,152.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $83,434.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $58,615.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $42,890.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $6,362.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $9,772.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $50,438.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $285,885.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $6,750.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $600.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $5,766.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $14,400.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $900.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $327,055.30 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $23,028.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $7,740.30 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $14,282.20 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $25,588.25 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $29,243.90 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $169,167.60 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $20,170.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $36,140.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $16,200.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $60,942.60 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $23,730.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $5,160.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-37 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H585801C H561801C H583901C H636101C H633101C H629501C HX13702C H494201C SS61001C H552901C H591301C H561201C H622801C H578301C H581701C H531901C H355201C H586301C H584201C H605101C SL44103C SS45101C H557101C SS50901C H633201C H636601C H666601C H521001C H416001C H502501C H210701C H556401C H615501C H614801C H614301C H591301C H303001C H576701C H563901C H578201C H568604C H355201C H524301C H460301C H580401C H375301C H578301C H319003C H625901C H556101C H589201C SS49101C H541701C H636101C H636301C H468101C H458301C SUB NAME INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INFOGUYS PBS LLC INLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC INTEGRATED LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT LLC INTERMOUNTAIN WEST CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS INC DBA PAYSON SAWCUT INC INTERMOUNTAIN WEST CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS INC DBA PAYSON SAWCUT INC INTERMOUNTAIN WEST CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS INC DBA PAYSON SAWCUT INC INTERMOUNTAIN WEST CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS INC DBA PAYSON SAWCUT INC INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CORP INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $25,520.05 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $38,439.85 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $12,638.75 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $22,500.20 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $20,550.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $1,529.10 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $11,721.15 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $7,082.50 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $32,905.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $52,101.50 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $159,715.75 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $15,065.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $28,404.80 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $38,983.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $28,056.30 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $14,971.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $25,987.90 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $15,402.80 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $83,696.75 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $26,799.70 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $23,010.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $1,500.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $15,350.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $89,424.25 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $55,701.25 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $8,250.00 2006 NONMINORITY $141,770.00 2007 NONMINORITY $41,875.00 2005 NONMINORITY $24,480.00 2003 NONMINORITY $15,439.04 2002 NONMINORITY $7,950.00 2005 NONMINORITY $12,614.65 2003 NONMINORITY $1,950.00 2006 NONMINORITY $72,800.00 2005 NONMINORITY $20,512.00 2005 NONMINORITY $4,260.00 2004 NONMINORITY $67,260.00 2002 NONMINORITY $3,385.00 2005 NONMINORITY $8,916.00 2003 NONMINORITY $167,355.00 2006 NONMINORITY $25,190.00 2005 NONMINORITY $26,400.00 2004 NONMINORITY $69,242.00 2002 NONMINORITY $3,075.00 2007 NONMINORITY $64,787.00 2002 NONMINORITY $39,265.35 2002 NONMINORITY $55,765.00 2006 NONMINORITY $18,942.00 2002 NONMINORITY $8,600.00 2004 NONMINORITY $61,232.50 2003 NONMINORITY $35,450.00 2002 NONMINORITY $9,004.00 2003 NONMINORITY $6,590.00 2003 NONMINORITY $9,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $1,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $17,380.00 2003 NONMINORITY $26,537.00 2003 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-38 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H536601C H410401C H538101C HX15801C H601401C H631001C H600001C H601502C H586001C H581701C H458101C H636301C H447201C SS50901C H586301C H591501C H521001C H563001C SB36901C H210701C H664901C H648801C SS58601C H390201C H584501C H210701C H526001C H595506C H549401C H458301C H615501C H611501C H497201C H425601C H549401C H524501C H355201C H390201C H541701C H626401C H463201C H610001C H578301C H664901C H458201C H319003C H529901C H463501C H591501C H538101C H591201C H463801C H457303C H625901C H554401C H458101C H564201C SUB NAME INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERSTATE MECHANICAL CORPORATION INTRA AMERICAN FOUNDATION & DRILLING INTRINSIC CONSULTING LLC IRONCO ENTERPRISES LLC IRONCO ENTERPRISES LLC ITS ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS OF UTAH INC J & C YORK TRUCKING INC J & D EXCAVATORS INC J & D EXCAVATORS INC J & D EXCAVATORS INC J & D EXCAVATORS INC J & D EXCAVATORS INC J & D EXCAVATORS INC J & D EXCAVATORS INC J & D EXCAVATORS INC J & D EXCAVATORS INC J & D EXCAVATORS INC J & D EXCAVATORS INC J & D EXCAVATORS INC J & D EXCAVATORS INC J & D EXCAVATORS INC J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC OUT OF BUSINESS J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC OUT OF BUSINESS J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC OUT OF BUSINESS J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC OUT OF BUSINESS J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC OUT OF BUSINESS J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC OUT OF BUSINESS J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC OUT OF BUSINESS J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC OUT OF BUSINESS J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC OUT OF BUSINESS J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC OUT OF BUSINESS J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC OUT OF BUSINESS J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC OUT OF BUSINESS J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC OUT OF BUSINESS J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC OUT OF BUSINESS J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC OUT OF BUSINESS J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC OUT OF BUSINESS J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC OUT OF BUSINESS J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC OUT OF BUSINESS J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC OUT OF BUSINESS SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $153,272.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $832,780.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $32,174.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $1,850.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $77,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $15,540.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $12,140.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $2,798.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $101,060.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $9,290.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $11,860.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $1,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $400,003.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $11,336.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $41,825.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $5,751.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $21,498.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $27,752.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $15,036.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $5,000.00 2005 NATIVE AMERICAN C $40,769.16 2006 NONMINORITY C $169,958.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $147,015.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $25,600.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $43,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $19,558.80 2005 NONMINORITY C $38,207.50 2002 NONMINORITY C $255,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $875,694.64 2004 NONMINORITY C $157,500.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $6,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $205,767.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $27,959.75 2003 NONMINORITY C $15,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $216,779.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $84,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $50,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $28,100.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $520,900.45 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $14,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $272,033.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $543,200.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $1,093,736.30 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $1,012,454.14 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $929,404.50 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $321,346.80 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $852,394.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $131,956.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $1,187,170.45 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $1,633,944.95 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $877,374.75 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $272,033.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $272,269.55 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $324,968.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $443,894.75 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $252,706.75 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $388,952.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-39 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H591101C H661501C H521001C H463501C H636301C H463601C H436701C H637102C H554401C H636301C H644001C H563901C SB36401C SH27301C H681601C H569301C H458101C H524501C H502501C H457303C H585101C SH28601C H434501C H576801C H510601C H681601C H466501C HX19201C H635401C H635301C H423901C H615301C H436101C H489301C H416001C H564201C H592401C H563001C H601401C H549401C H410401C H591601C H488601C H534801C H568603C SS49101C H548301C SH27801C SS46701C SS50901C H591201C H643401C H578201C H595501C H645101C H578301C H386803C SUB NAME J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC OUT OF BUSINESS J B N INDUSTRIAL FENCE INC J BANICKI CONSTRUCTION INC J BANICKI CONSTRUCTION INC J BANICKI CONSTRUCTION INC J BANICKI CONSTRUCTION INC J BANICKI CONSTRUCTION INC J BANICKI CONSTRUCTION INC J BANICKI CONSTRUCTION INC J BANICKI CONSTRUCTION INC J BANICKI CONSTRUCTION INC J BANICKI CONSTRUCTION INC J H DYKSTRA CO J H DYKSTRA CO J M TRUCKING J S A CO J S A CO J S C CONTRACTING JAMES BOND TRUCKING JAMES WATER TRUCKING INC JC ROCK LLC JEVAS ENGINEERING INC JOE DIRT EXCAVATING INC JOE DIRT EXCAVATING INC JOE DIRT EXCAVATING INC JR HALL & SONS TRUCKING K & B ASPHALT CO K & B ASPHALT CO K & B ASPHALT CO K & B ASPHALT CO K & B ASPHALT CO K & B ASPHALT CO K & J SERVICES LLC K & J SERVICES LLC KANEEN ADVERTISING & PUBLIC RELATIONS KANEEN ADVERTISING & PUBLIC RELATIONS KANEEN ADVERTISING & PUBLIC RELATIONS KANEEN ADVERTISING & PUBLIC RELATIONS KANEEN ADVERTISING & PUBLIC RELATIONS KANEEN ADVERTISING & PUBLIC RELATIONS KANEEN ADVERTISING & PUBLIC RELATIONS KANEEN ADVERTISING & PUBLIC RELATIONS KANEEN ADVERTISING & PUBLIC RELATIONS KANEEN ADVERTISING & PUBLIC RELATIONS KEENES EARTHWORK INC KEEP ON TRUCKING KIEWIT WESTERN KIMBRELL ELECTRIC INC KIMBRELL ELECTRIC INC KIMBRELL ELECTRIC INC KLONDYKE INC L & L ASPHALT LLC L P STEEL INDUSTRIES INC L P STEEL INDUSTRIES INC L S FENCE LLLP L S FENCE LLLP L S FENCE LLLP SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $833,064.75 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $9,688.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $23,780.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $2,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $81,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $2,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $13,600.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $18,800.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $170,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $81,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $7,450.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $11,150.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $30,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $30,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $9,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $44,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $210,807.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $203,475.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $81,395.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $4,800.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $14,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $11,700.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $6,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $7,600.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $38,070.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $38,400.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $94,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $91,862.48 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $74,152.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $91,862.48 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $164,035.20 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $38,851.46 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,988.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $11,988.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $51,788.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $47,500.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $95,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $95,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $30,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $50,700.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $25,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $35,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $25,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $80,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $70,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $15,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $36,450.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $28,887.50 2004 NONMINORITY C $19,193.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $10,785.48 2004 NONMINORITY C $4,800.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $15,897.50 2007 NONMINORITY C $3,300.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $22,958.29 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $3,450.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $180,345.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $114,144.85 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-40 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H595504C H639201C H541701C H534801C H578201C H592401C H502501C H447201C H595502C H532001C H615501C H564201C H524301C H595503C H528501C H666601C H614601C H303001C H529901C H463901C H589801C H560401C H591601C H460301C SS50001C H641301C H660401C SS58601C H670201C H569001C H313502C H390201C H554401C H606901C H568603C H595504C H502501C H664901C H554401C H552901C H503703C H460401C H457303C H636601C H510601C H679101C H576701C H447201C H605001C H585301C H460401C H483102C H555801C H561201C H631001C H586001C SS44701C SUB NAME L S FENCE LLLP L S FENCE LLLP L S FENCE LLLP L S FENCE LLLP L S FENCE LLLP L S FENCE LLLP L S FENCE LLLP L S FENCE LLLP L S FENCE LLLP L S FENCE LLLP L S FENCE LLLP L S FENCE LLLP L S FENCE LLLP L S FENCE LLLP L S FENCE LLLP L S FENCE LLLP L S FENCE LLLP L S FENCE LLLP L S FENCE LLP LABOR EXPRESS TEMPORARY SERVICES LABOR EXPRESS TEMPORARY SERVICES LABOR EXPRESS TEMPORARY SERVICES LABOR EXPRESS TEMPORARY SERVICES LABOR SYSTEMS LABOR TEMPS LAND TECH LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION LLC LAND TECH LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION LLC LAND TECH LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION LLC LAND TECH LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION LLC LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC LANTZ WEED CONTROL LAYNES TRANSFER LEES TRUCKING LEONARDS CONCRETE PUMPING INC LINDSEY TRUCKING INC LITTLE SCRAPER CO INC LITTLE SCRAPER CO INC LITTLE SCRAPER CO INC LITTLE SCRAPER CO INC LITTLE SCRAPER CO INC LITTLE SCRAPER CO INC LITTLE SCRAPER CO INC LITTLE SCRAPER CO INC LIVE WIRE ELECTRIC INC LIVE WIRE ELECTRIC INC LIVE WIRE ELECTRIC INC LOGAN SIMPSON DESIGN INC LORDS FENCE INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $20,524.27 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $31,925.40 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $50,579.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $43,887.50 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $369,195.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $111,443.35 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $50,828.42 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $27,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $65,915.55 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $8,956.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $8,921.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $45,148.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $49,626.40 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $107,455.75 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $45,978.40 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $71,090.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,402.80 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $185,822.08 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $216,363.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $500.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $6,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $9,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $1,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $1,665.20 2007 NONMINORITY C $5,490.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $154,050.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $154,050.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $202,185.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $46,354.50 2007 NONMINORITY C $75,470.50 2003 NONMINORITY C $6,300.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $12,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $19,200.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $1,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $2,014.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $779,947.58 2007 NONMINORITY C $111,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $16,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $15,200.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $8,550.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $5,760.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $54,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $4,800.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $44,901.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $1,241,285.30 2006 NONMINORITY C $67,706.45 2006 NONMINORITY C $26,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $282,564.20 2002 NONMINORITY C $9,598.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $11,696.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $59,667.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $60,939.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $13,440.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $581,882.12 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $15,070.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $9,000.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $33,955.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-41 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # SS49101C H614801C H591101C H615501C H538101C H436701C H591501C H355201C H615101C H552301C H510401C H453501C H568603C H586301C H610001C H386803C H529901C SS46701C H595544C H561201C H559701C H524801C H554401C H355201C H591501C H629501C H591301C H538101C H585801C H586001C H497201C H549401C H576801C H528203C H578101C H557101C H586301C H636101C H556501C H595502C SS50801C H615301C H636601C H561401C H664901C H626401C H679101C H591201C H584801C H637103C H615501C H524101C H614901C H592401C H678001C H460301C H541701C SUB NAME LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC M & J CONSTRUCTION INC M & J EXCAVATING M & S EARTH SERVICES M & S SHOTCRETE M & S SHOTCRETE M A C CONTRACTING M A C CONTRACTING M A C CONTRACTING M L 2 EARTHWORKS LLC M R M CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC M R M CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC M R M CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC M R M CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC M R M CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC M R M CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC M R M CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC M R M CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC M R M CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC M R M CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC M R M CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC M R M CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC M R M CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC M R M CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $65,722.80 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $55,319.70 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $84,644.50 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $622,263.01 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $164,217.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $11,870.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $94,640.76 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $12,673.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $237,158.69 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $68,782.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $73,324.82 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $70,869.56 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $157,029.20 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $9,500.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $25,000.00 2003 AFRICAN AMERICAN $10,800.00 2003 NONMINORITY $19,200.00 2002 NONMINORITY $7,225.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $51,220.10 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $57,364.00 2003 NONMINORITY $145,321.00 2002 NONMINORITY $58,612.00 2002 NONMINORITY $9,500.00 2006 NATIVE AMERICAN $18,650.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $184,500.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $12,000.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $265,000.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $144,300.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $18,000.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $5,500.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $164,900.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $178,040.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $98,950.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $22,750.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $147,750.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $25,000.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $8,175.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $9,235.00 2006 NONMINORITY $21,120.00 2003 NONMINORITY $162,275.00 2003 NONMINORITY $27,915.00 2006 NONMINORITY $20,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY $106,470.00 2006 NONMINORITY $8,361.00 2004 NONMINORITY $345,505.00 2006 NONMINORITY $5,748.00 2004 NONMINORITY $28,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $236,713.00 2005 NONMINORITY $29,700.00 2007 NONMINORITY $33,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $52,350.00 2006 NONMINORITY $83,210.00 2007 NONMINORITY $27,630.00 2005 NONMINORITY $120,006.00 2005 NONMINORITY $98,651.00 2007 NONMINORITY $24,260.00 2007 NONMINORITY $41,218.00 2003 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-42 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H534801C H591001C H648801C H614401C H635901C SS45101C H614201C H635301C H568603C H585501C H646301C HX19201C H390201C H585101C H416001C H568604C H595544C H595504C H639201C H637101C H636501C H681601C SS53401C SS44701C H458201C H585001C H468101C H550601C H552901C H615501C H659001C H516301C H425601C H510401C H458201C H576801C H545501C H510601C H545501C H378401C H552901C H319003C H578201C H578101C H545501C H545501C H601501C H578201C H601502C H591301C H578301C H613801C H595506C H636601C H679101C H595508C H341401C SUB NAME MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING INC MALDONADO OLSON MASONRY INC MALDONADO OLSON MASONRY INC MARANA CURB & CONCRETE INC MARANA CURB & CONCRETE INC MARANA CURB & CONCRETE INC MARANA CURB & CONCRETE INC MARANA CURB & CONCRETE INC MARANA CURB & CONCRETE INC MARCANTI ELECTRIC INC MARCO CRANE & RIGGING CO MARCO CRANE & RIGGING CO MARCO CRANE & RIGGING CO MARCO CRANE & RIGGING CO MARCO CRANE & RIGGING CO MARCO CRANE & RIGGING CO MARCO CRANE & RIGGING CO MARCO CRANE & RIGGING CO MARCO CRANE & RIGGING CO MARCO CRANE & RIGGING CO MARCO CRANE & RIGGING CO MARCO CRANE & RIGGING CO MARTIN PELLEGRINO MASCOT HOMES AND CONSTRUCTION LLC MASCOT HOMES AND CONSTRUCTION LLC MASTEC NORTH AMERICA INC MASTEC NORTH AMERICA INC MASTEC NORTH AMERICA INC MASTEC NORTH AMERICA INC MASTEC NORTH AMERICA INC MATRIX LAND SURVEYING INC MATRIX LAND SURVEYING INC MATRIX LAND SURVEYING INC MATRIX LAND SURVEYING INC MATRIX LAND SURVEYING INC MATRIX LAND SURVEYING INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $136,878.00 2003 NONMINORITY $23,750.00 2003 NONMINORITY $13,385.00 2005 NONMINORITY $41,335.00 2007 NONMINORITY $18,824.00 2006 NONMINORITY $12,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $45,230.00 2006 NONMINORITY $19,950.00 2007 NONMINORITY $165,020.00 2004 NONMINORITY $19,231.00 2004 NONMINORITY $4,211.00 2004 NONMINORITY $19,950.00 2007 NONMINORITY $57,920.00 2006 NONMINORITY $2,925.00 2005 NONMINORITY $169,750.00 2003 NONMINORITY $224,627.00 2005 NONMINORITY $19,851.00 2005 NONMINORITY $127,134.00 2007 NONMINORITY $45,450.00 2006 NONMINORITY $14,438.00 2003 NONMINORITY $105,325.00 2006 NONMINORITY $25,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $85,182.50 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $88,284.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $57,405.00 2005 NONMINORITY $4,298.00 2004 NONMINORITY $14,800.00 2003 NONMINORITY $9,590.00 2003 NONMINORITY $5,395.00 2004 NONMINORITY $10,630.00 2006 NONMINORITY $16,352.00 2006 NONMINORITY $26,122.50 2003 NONMINORITY $45,100.00 2003 NONMINORITY $28,163.50 2005 NONMINORITY $42,270.00 2005 NONMINORITY $88,027.50 2004 NONMINORITY $11,025.00 2006 NONMINORITY $27,673.00 2006 NONMINORITY $11,025.00 2006 NONMINORITY $5,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $6,318.00 2004 NONMINORITY $45,800.00 2002 NONMINORITY $433,860.00 2006 NONMINORITY $6,800.00 2004 NONMINORITY $15,407.60 2006 NONMINORITY $15,407.60 2006 NONMINORITY $17,230.00 2005 NONMINORITY $197,615.01 2006 NONMINORITY $3,700.00 2005 NONMINORITY $56,345.00 2004 NONMINORITY $440,358.03 2006 NONMINORITY $15,900.00 2005 NONMINORITY $112,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY $32,700.00 2006 NONMINORITY $10,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $58,900.00 2005 NONMINORITY $341,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-43 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H602701C H635701C H510601C H614801C H415901C H210701C H643401C H537002C H666601C H532001C H595544C H578201C H614201C H578201C H591201C H529901C H510601C H591201C H458401C H678001C H319003C H541701C H521001C H578301C H578301C H664901C H591501C H626401C H625901C H591501C H210701C H591301C H610001C H591301C H538101C H601401C H591101C H568603C H527201C H633601C H458401C H576701C H581701C H460301C H560101C SS49101C H625901C H664901C H591001C H568603C H557201C H644001C H521001C H341401C H458401C H545501C H510401C SUB NAME MATRIX LAND SURVEYING INC MATRIX LAND SURVEYING INC MATRIX LAND SURVEYING INC MATRIX LAND SURVEYING INC MATTHEWSVILLE EXCAVATING MAVERICK MASONRY INC MAXIM CRANE WORKS MAXIM CRANE WORKS MAXIM CRANE WORKS MAXIM CRANE WORKS MAXIM CRANE WORKS MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MCCORMICK CONSTRUCTION CO MCGRAW ENTERPRISES MCGRAW ENTERPRISES MCGRAW ENTERPRISES MCGRAW ENTERPRISES MCGRAW ENTERPRISES MCGUCKIN DRILLING INC MCGUCKIN DRILLING INC MCGUCKIN DRILLING INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MERCURY CONSTRUCTORS INC MERCURY CONSTRUCTORS INC MERCURY CONSTRUCTORS INC METRO SAW & SEAL INC METRO SAW & SEAL INC METRO SAW & SEAL INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $28,700.00 2005 NONMINORITY $15,290.00 2006 NONMINORITY $239,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $39,700.00 2005 NONMINORITY $2,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $360,121.46 2005 NONMINORITY $5,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $13,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $12,300.00 2007 NONMINORITY $5,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $5,120.00 2005 NONMINORITY $12,971,888.00 2006 NONMINORITY $1,143,813.00 2006 NONMINORITY $2,695,403.00 2006 NONMINORITY $4,190,543.20 2005 NONMINORITY $6,311,332.50 2002 NONMINORITY $1,849,100.00 2006 NONMINORITY $250,384.42 2005 NONMINORITY $4,305,970.00 2006 NONMINORITY $1,318,950.00 2007 NONMINORITY $4,075,204.00 2002 NONMINORITY $2,845,516.00 2003 NONMINORITY $2,044,120.00 2005 NONMINORITY $7,115,616.60 2006 NONMINORITY $977,992.00 2006 NONMINORITY $4,585,386.50 2006 NONMINORITY $5,077,694.00 2004 NONMINORITY $133,667.00 2004 NONMINORITY $77,580.00 2004 NONMINORITY $549,169.00 2004 NONMINORITY $1,230,965.20 2005 NONMINORITY $518,040.00 2004 NONMINORITY $10,375,546.00 2003 NONMINORITY $5,988,865.00 2004 NONMINORITY $277,364.00 2004 NONMINORITY $1,886,245.00 2004 NONMINORITY $7,736,517.00 2005 NONMINORITY $1,267,880.72 2004 NONMINORITY $14,805.50 2002 NONMINORITY $2,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY $89,424.00 2006 NONMINORITY $10,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $27,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY $2,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY $63,590.00 2004 NONMINORITY $108,075.00 2003 NONMINORITY $22,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY $3,961,877.00 2006 NONMINORITY $919,787.50 2003 NONMINORITY $4,579,523.80 2004 NONMINORITY $55,917.00 2003 NONMINORITY $181,812.00 2006 NONMINORITY $12,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $6,441,030.80 2007 NONMINORITY $5,722.00 2006 NONMINORITY $71,777.90 2006 NONMINORITY $23,370.40 2005 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-44 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H545501C H595544C H670201C HX17401C H460301C H528206C H644001C H591101C H458201C SS49901C H649301C H490801C H511801C SS53401C SS58601C SS46701C H655601C H568603C H463601C H436701C H463901C H666601C H568604C H548301C H584401C H527501C H589201C H554401C H557201C H527201C H303001C H502501C H614901C H592401C H658401C H580401C H458301C H591501C H648801C H625901C H578201C H591301C H595501C H637103C H664901C H667001C H578301C H210701C H527801C H556701C H556201C H625901C SS44701C H458201C H645101C H489301C H574501C SUB NAME METRO SAW & SEAL INC METRO SAW & SEAL INC METRO SAW & SEAL INC METRO SAW & SEAL INC METRO SAW & SEAL INC METRO SAW & SEAL INC METRO SAW & SEAL INC METRO SAW & SEAL INC METRO SAW & SEAL INC METRO SAW & SEAL INC METRO SAW & SEAL INC MIDSTATE GUARDRAIL FENCE & SIGN MIKE S CONTRACTING INC MILLER LAND SURVEYING INC MILLER LAND SURVEYING INC MILLER LAND SURVEYING INC MILLER LAND SURVEYING INC MILLER LAND SURVEYING INC MILLER LAND SURVEYING INC MILLER LAND SURVEYING INC MILLER LAND SURVEYING INC MILLER LAND SURVEYING INC MODERN CONCRETE CUTTING CO MOHAVE ENGINEERING ASSOC INC MOHAVE FENCE & GUARDRAIL MOHAVE FENCE & GUARDRAIL MOHAVE FENCE & GUARDRAIL MOHAVE FENCE & GUARDRAIL MOHAVE FENCE & GUARDRAIL MOHAVE FENCE & GUARDRAIL MOHAVE FENCE & GUARDRAIL MOHAVE FENCE & GUARDRAIL MOHAVE FENCE & GUARDRAIL MOHAVE FENCE & GUARDRAIL MOHAVE FENCE & GUARDRAIL MOHAVE FENCE & GUARDRAIL MOHAVE FENCE & GUARDRAIL MORRISON MAIERLE INC MORRISON MAIERLE INC MORRISON MAIERLE INC MORRISON MAIERLE INC MORRISON MAIERLE INC MORRISON MAIERLE INC MORRISON MAIERLE INC MORRISON MAIERLE INC MORRISON MAIERLE INC MORRISON MAIERLE INC MOUNTAIN COMFORT HEATING AND COOLING MOUNTAIN POWER ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR INC MOUNTAIN POWER ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR INC MOUNTAIN POWER ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR INC MOUNTAIN STATES CONTRACTING INC MRM CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC N E S TRAFFIC SAFETY LP N E S TRAFFIC SAFETY LP N E S TRAFFIC SAFETY LP N E S TRAFFIC SAFETY LP SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $71,777.90 2006 NONMINORITY C $125.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $4,522.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $7,933.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $9,978.80 2007 NONMINORITY C $16,516.30 2006 NONMINORITY C $5,203.25 2006 NONMINORITY C $29,250.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $9,185.60 2005 NONMINORITY C $662.60 2006 NONMINORITY C $1,508.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $101,813.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $9,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $75,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $7,770.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $960.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $28,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $462,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $50,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $42,600.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $42,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $69,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $1,156.54 2005 NONMINORITY C $12,450.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $156,301.35 2005 NONMINORITY C $20,303.50 2002 NONMINORITY C $24,232.30 2002 NONMINORITY C $456,285.95 2006 NONMINORITY C $36,889.05 2003 NONMINORITY C $4,550.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $18,566.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $72,695.60 2002 NONMINORITY C $129,027.25 2005 NONMINORITY C $185,920.60 2005 NONMINORITY C $32,112.40 2006 NONMINORITY C $17,497.50 2002 NONMINORITY C $11,263.50 2003 NONMINORITY C $430,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $10,550.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $65,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $1,700,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $650,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $54,300.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $6,750.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $566,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $6,700.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $505,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $61,268.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $9,172.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $2,300.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $2,335.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $347,203.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $6,945.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $78,681.94 2005 NONMINORITY C $12,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $94,016.90 2004 NONMINORITY C $6,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-45 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H528203C H503706C H601502C H434701C H584301C H503703C H625901C H595503C H210701C H666601C H378401C H670201C H510601C H633401C H599901C H605201C H569201C H390201C H581701C H633601C H614101C H552901C H550601C H210701C HX15701C H591601C H569701C H532301C H460401C SH28201C H576301C H527001C H552301C H610001C H386803C H563001C H510601C H603101C H608201C H423901C H574501C SH28601C H511801C H616901C H578301C H625901C H644001C H591001C H578201C SS49101C H510601C H644001C H585101C H503706C H649301C H610001C H601501C SUB NAME N E S TRAFFIC SAFETY LP N E S TRAFFIC SAFETY LP N E S TRAFFIC SAFETY LP N E S TRAFFIC SAFETY LP N E S TRAFFIC SAFETY LP N E S TRAFFIC SAFETY LP N E S TRAFFIC SAFETY LP N E S TRAFFIC SAFETY LP N E S TRAFFIC SAFETY LP N E S TRAFFIC SAFETY LP N E S TRAFFIC SAFETY LP N E S TRAFFIC SAFETY LP N E S TRAFFIC SAFETY LP N J SHAUM & SON INC ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS N J SHAUM & SON INC ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS NAPOLES INC NATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL LLC NEW HORIZON CONSTRUCTION STAKING NEW HORIZON CONSTRUCTION STAKING NEW HORIZON CONSTRUCTION STAKING NEW HORIZON CONSTRUCTION STAKING NEW HORIZON SURVEYING NEW HORIZON SURVEYING NEW HORIZON SURVEYING NEW HORIZON SURVEYING NEW HORIZON SURVEYING NEW HORIZON SURVEYING NEW HORIZON SURVEYING NEW HORIZON SURVEYING NICKLAUS ENGINEERING INC NICKLAUS ENGINEERING INC NICKLAUS ENGINEERING INC NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS NORTHERN ARIZONA MASONRY INC NORTHERN ARIZONA MASONRY INC NORTHERN AZ SAWCUTTING AND CORING DBA PRO CONCRETE CUTTING INC NORTHERN AZ SAWCUTTING AND CORING DBA PRO CONCRETE CUTTING INC NORTHERN SURVEYS NORTHLAND EQUIPMENT RENTAL & SERVICE LLC NYCE CONCRETE INC O P C FABRICATION & EQUIPMENT INC O P C FABRICATION & EQUIPMENT INC O P C FABRICATION & EQUIPMENT INC O P C FABRICATION & EQUIPMENT INC O P C FABRICATION & EQUIPMENT INC O P C FABRICATION & EQUIPMENT INC O P C FABRICATION & EQUIPMENT INC O P C FABRICATION & EQUIPMENT INC O P C FABRICATION & EQUIPMENT INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $22,500.00 2003 NONMINORITY $41,285.00 2005 NONMINORITY $78,888.81 2005 NONMINORITY $4,015.01 2003 NONMINORITY $1,750.00 2004 NONMINORITY $8,400.00 2004 NONMINORITY $26,767.20 2004 NONMINORITY $59,061.24 2004 NONMINORITY $2,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY $82,522.50 2007 NONMINORITY $28,493.00 2006 NONMINORITY $122,497.01 2007 NONMINORITY $1,554.00 2006 NONMINORITY $4,320.00 2007 NONMINORITY $4,320.00 2007 NONMINORITY $31,739.15 2007 NONMINORITY $59,900.00 2003 NONMINORITY $8,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $63,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $6,970.00 2007 NONMINORITY $17,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY $5,600.00 2004 NONMINORITY $24,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $60,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $3,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY $35,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $9,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY $5,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $52,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $13,760.00 2007 NONMINORITY $1,925.00 2003 NONMINORITY $9,250.00 2002 NONMINORITY $14,800.00 2005 NONMINORITY $432,330.00 2003 NONMINORITY $52,345.00 2003 NONMINORITY $52,345.00 2003 NONMINORITY $19,200.00 2006 NONMINORITY $6,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY $10,500.00 2007 NONMINORITY $8,360.00 2005 NATIVE AMERICAN $37,660.00 2005 AFRICAN AMERICAN $18,620.00 2006 NONMINORITY $8,843.00 2005 NONMINORITY $4,268.00 2007 NONMINORITY $162,968.00 2006 NONMINORITY $69,647.54 2004 NONMINORITY $31,110.00 2006 NONMINORITY $37,038.00 2003 NONMINORITY $190,831.00 2006 NONMINORITY $13,425.00 2003 NONMINORITY $43,680.00 2006 NONMINORITY $8,960.00 2006 NONMINORITY $12,460.00 2005 NONMINORITY $23,270.00 2005 NONMINORITY $17,920.00 2006 NONMINORITY $300,152.00 2003 NONMINORITY $2,685.00 2005 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-46 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H303802C H560101C H386803C SS45101C H463601C H633401C H483102C H655601C H521001C H447201C H599901C H463201C H643401C H595504C H614801C H463801C H601502C SS53401C H581701C H643401C H488601C SH27801C H511801C H390201C H524101C H584501C H489301C H447201C H525401C H534801C H303001C H510601C H341401C H636701C H636501C H524301C H636601C H488601C H589201C H410401C H386803C H637001C H458301C H526901C H585101C H303802C H510401C H436701C H595503C H410401C H592401C H584201C H488601C H552901C H568604C H527801C H587601C SUB NAME OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS INC ORTA FENCE INC ORTA FENCE INC ORTA FENCE INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $86,509.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $13,995.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $156,745.06 2003 NONMINORITY C $6,680.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $3,200.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $23,920.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $61,800.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $2,900.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $2,835.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $42,340.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $23,920.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $9,680.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $11,910.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $12,890.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $6,925.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $9,680.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $3,455.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $28,700.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $85,255.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $190,875.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $15,500.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $11,320.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $19,235.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $64,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $749,440.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $144,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $6,200.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $200,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $45,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $30,070.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $463,895.95 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $6,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $423,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $237,537.50 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $684,480.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $53,575.95 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $193,750.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $52,041.60 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $86,400.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $52,041.60 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $489,486.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $327,050.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $70,200.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $40,600.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $18,412.90 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $125,790.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $79,864.20 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $243,150.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $729,800.08 2004 NONMINORITY C $104,083.20 2002 NONMINORITY C $125,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $510,025.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $104,083.20 2002 NONMINORITY C $23,481.90 2004 NONMINORITY C $1,736,640.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $42,775.10 2002 NONMINORITY C $39,721.00 2002 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-47 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H545501C H591301C H555801C H561801C H527301C H661501C H567601C H560101C H578201C H557201C H576801C H610001C H529901C H583901C H554401C H526501C HX19201C H578301C H516301C H648601C H636001C H585301C H635301C H497201C H670201C H637102C H615301C H635401C H636301C H683001C H613701C H591101C H586201C H584801C H649301C H545501C H458201C H636301C H451001C H578101C H549401C H525901C H341401C H531901C SS49901C H631001C H595544C H425601C H549401C H635701C H585001C H552901C H605101C SB40701C H624401C H613801C H636601C SUB NAME OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC OTTO TRUCKING INC P A C E ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION INC P C I GROUP P M S TRUCKS INC P M S TRUCKS INC P M S TRUCKS INC P M S TRUCKS INC PALO VERDE CONSTRUCTORS DBA PD CONSTRUCTION INC PALO VERDE CONSTRUCTORS DBA PD CONSTRUCTION INC PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $703,159.04 2006 NONMINORITY C $1,927,324.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $198,171.75 2004 NONMINORITY C $15,375.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $178,766.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $500.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $178,766.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $50,960.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $274,055.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $42,700.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $136,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $15,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $1,174,125.85 2002 NONMINORITY C $10,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $90,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $8,800.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $16,640.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $1,249,093.40 2006 NONMINORITY C $433,440.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $5,280.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $25,250.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $177,882.25 2004 NONMINORITY C $16,640.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $41,700.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $1,720.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $234,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $183,714.15 2006 NONMINORITY C $11,400.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $312,522.90 2006 NONMINORITY C $213,750.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $76,950.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $1,240,479.50 2005 NONMINORITY C $18,246.30 2004 NONMINORITY C $126,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $2,227.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $703,159.04 2006 NONMINORITY C $1,041,318.52 2005 NONMINORITY C $312,522.90 2006 NONMINORITY C $71,860.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $646,792.50 2004 NONMINORITY C $20,400.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $12,800.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $60,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $3,850.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $85,705.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $4,800.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $9,280.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $9,053.60 2003 NONMINORITY C $22,040.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $5,537.74 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,568.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,357.39 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,393.59 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,350.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,552.66 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,357.14 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $20,379.67 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-48 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H629501C H555801C H584501C SS58601C H605001C HX16101C H614101C SS49901C H622201C H527301C H636101C SS46701C H390201C H602701C H636501C H567601C H639201C H633601C H528206C H524101C H510401C H635901C H649301C H463501C H595502C H463201C H540201C H563901C H610001C H457303C H502501C H416001C H447201C H591001C H555601C H541701C H483102C H319003C H386803C H497201C H529901C H561201C H468101C H210701C H659301C H595502C H568603C H664901C H585501C H678001C H591201C H614201C H560101C H615501C H678001C H416001C H578201C SUB NAME PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC SEE COMMENTS PARADISE REBAR INC PARADISE REBAR INC PARADISE REBAR INC PARADISE REBAR INC PARADISE REBAR INC PARADISE REBAR INC PARADISE REBAR INC PARADISE REBAR INC PARADISE REBAR INC PARADISE REBAR INC PARADISE REBAR INC PARADISE REBAR INC PARADISE REBAR INC PARADISE REBAR INC PARADISE REBAR INC PARADISE REBAR INC PARADISE REBAR INC PARADISE REBAR INC PARADISE REBAR INC PARADISE REBAR INC PARADISE REBAR INC PARTITIONS & ACCESSORIES CO PAT KELTON GRADING INC PAT KELTON GRADING INC PAT KELTON GRADING INC PAT KELTON GRADING INC PAT KELTON GRADING INC PAT KELTON GRADING INC PAT KELTON GRADING INC PAT KELTON GRADING INC PAT KELTON GRADING INC PAT KELTON GRADING INC PAT KELTON GRADING INC PAT KELTON GRADING INC PAULEY CONSTRUCTION INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $2,067.73 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,020.50 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $48,100.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $1,170.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $5,143.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $9,405.47 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,499.50 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,628.48 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $7,035.80 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $10,185.26 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,412.68 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $1,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,747.72 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $38,317.95 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,500.50 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $10,185.26 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $21,885.28 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $9,360.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $9,909.24 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,707.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $18,711.56 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $21,956.48 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $151,725.71 2006 NATIVE AMERICAN C $232,162.36 2002 NATIVE AMERICAN C $199,219.55 2003 NATIVE AMERICAN C $142,758.85 2002 NATIVE AMERICAN C $88,701.16 2002 NATIVE AMERICAN C $133,670.38 2003 NATIVE AMERICAN C $2,412,381.10 2003 NATIVE AMERICAN C $447,315.93 2002 NATIVE AMERICAN C $84,465.69 2002 NATIVE AMERICAN C $607,680.48 2003 NATIVE AMERICAN C $2,732,735.50 2002 NATIVE AMERICAN C $280,674.87 2003 NATIVE AMERICAN C $4,204.80 2003 NATIVE AMERICAN C $324,649.39 2003 NATIVE AMERICAN C $351,105.38 2002 NATIVE AMERICAN C $4,155,088.05 2002 NATIVE AMERICAN C $704,573.00 2003 NATIVE AMERICAN C $198,338.35 2003 NATIVE AMERICAN C $2,387,553.41 2002 NATIVE AMERICAN C $8,459.40 2003 NATIVE AMERICAN C $228,423.92 2003 NATIVE AMERICAN C $6,442.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $167,066.30 2007 NONMINORITY C $181,415.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $315,781.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $86,226.80 2006 NONMINORITY C $4,455.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $31,446.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $155,300.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $155,221.90 2006 NONMINORITY C $67,402.40 2004 NONMINORITY C $749,723.55 2006 NONMINORITY C $416,595.40 2007 NONMINORITY C $155,625.26 2003 NONMINORITY C $746,757.69 2006 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-49 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H636101C H567601C HX19201C H610401C H635401C H460401C H585801C H605001C H589801C H617801C H526801C H635301C H451001C H510601C H425601C SH28101C H458201C H516301C H436101C H683001C H679101C H494201C H613801C H635901C H599901C H586201C H453501C H447201C H602701C H613701C H585501C H631001C H584401C H592401C HX15701C H633401C H587601C H355201C H525001C H441502C H556301C H593301C H614101C H616901C H635701C H591501C H605201C SH27801C H528001C H589701C SL46801C H527301C H608201C H589901C H460301C H643401C H527201C SUB NAME PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $85,585.64 2006 NONMINORITY $117,914.45 2004 NONMINORITY $192,552.04 2007 NONMINORITY $124,717.96 2003 NONMINORITY $53,658.50 2006 NONMINORITY $56,484.12 2003 NONMINORITY $47,571.00 2004 NONMINORITY $7,250.00 2005 NONMINORITY $70,335.50 2003 NONMINORITY $165,335.52 2007 NONMINORITY $95,631.20 2002 NONMINORITY $192,552.04 2007 NONMINORITY $9,560.00 2004 NONMINORITY $83,356.53 2006 NONMINORITY $21,679.40 2003 NONMINORITY $9,393.00 2007 NONMINORITY $175,153.00 2005 NONMINORITY $59,488.51 2003 NONMINORITY $120,912.96 2004 NONMINORITY $826,007.60 2007 NONMINORITY $45,659.11 2006 NONMINORITY $2,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $106,292.91 2005 NONMINORITY $36,997.50 2006 NONMINORITY $39,690.80 2007 NONMINORITY $28,011.75 2004 NONMINORITY $28,857.90 2003 NONMINORITY $107,331.06 2002 NONMINORITY $49,103.27 2005 NONMINORITY $42,509.00 2006 NONMINORITY $89,735.38 2004 NONMINORITY $38,645.00 2005 NONMINORITY $276,805.00 2005 NONMINORITY $121,969.80 2005 NONMINORITY $4,984.40 2006 NONMINORITY $39,690.80 2007 NONMINORITY $15,878.95 2002 NONMINORITY $22,121.25 2004 NONMINORITY $76,719.80 2005 NONMINORITY $150,770.59 2003 NONMINORITY $61,923.50 2004 NONMINORITY $6,629.05 2004 NONMINORITY $76,719.80 2005 NONMINORITY $2,104.00 2007 NONMINORITY $128,596.00 2006 NONMINORITY $34,384.85 2004 NONMINORITY $2,104.00 2007 NONMINORITY $9,225.00 2004 NONMINORITY $50,536.00 2003 NONMINORITY $44,771.00 2002 NONMINORITY $5,225.50 2005 NONMINORITY $117,914.45 2004 NONMINORITY $24,063.00 2007 NONMINORITY $88,345.80 2003 NONMINORITY $46,307.15 2007 NONMINORITY $896,464.04 2007 NONMINORITY $52,370.20 2002 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-50 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H580401C SS58601C SL46901C H410401C H525901C H458101C H649301C H536601C H585901C H490801C H583901C SS49101C H585001C H390502C SH28601C H561801C H550601C H490602C H210701C H648601C H606501C H595544C H555801C H428202C HX13702C H557201C H556601C H423901C H390201C H610001C H463501C H637102C H601401C H521001C H584301C H585001C H341401C H706001C H499102C H556701C H303802C H611501C H613901C H595503C H636501C H636701C H683001C H595506C H458201C H617801C H468101C H578201C H648201C H584501C H592401C H636301C H503703C SUB NAME PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PENHALL CO DBA PHOENIX CONCRETE CUTTING PENHALL CO DBA PHOENIX CONCRETE CUTTING PENHALL CO DBA PHOENIX CONCRETE CUTTING PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $95,631.20 2002 NONMINORITY $16,268.75 2007 NONMINORITY $2,694.80 2004 NONMINORITY $117,960.00 2002 NONMINORITY $42,374.00 2002 NONMINORITY $57,014.50 2002 NONMINORITY $12,037.15 2006 NONMINORITY $69,190.94 2002 NONMINORITY $61,668.75 2004 NONMINORITY $34,801.90 2002 NONMINORITY $46,140.80 2004 NONMINORITY $10,891.33 2003 NONMINORITY $82,643.00 2004 NONMINORITY $133,179.30 2003 NONMINORITY $5,376.00 2006 NONMINORITY $19,003.76 2005 NONMINORITY $12,571.36 2003 NONMINORITY $133,179.30 2003 NONMINORITY $33,815.00 2005 NONMINORITY $5,073.50 2006 NONMINORITY $6,496.20 2003 NONMINORITY $6,545.00 2005 NONMINORITY $68,118.60 2004 NONMINORITY $133,179.30 2003 NONMINORITY $9,290.00 2004 NONMINORITY $95,375.00 2003 NONMINORITY $93,153.75 2005 NONMINORITY $7,824.20 2005 NONMINORITY $123,288.00 2006 NONMINORITY $708,448.96 2003 NONMINORITY $270,962.00 2002 NONMINORITY $1,025,243.00 2004 NONMINORITY $8,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY $4,850.00 2005 NONMINORITY $33,616.00 2004 NONMINORITY $96,079.28 2004 NONMINORITY $89,740.00 2007 NONMINORITY $50,794.30 2007 NONMINORITY $6,780.00 2003 NONMINORITY $6,539.40 2003 NONMINORITY $6,300.00 2002 NONMINORITY $49,299.50 2004 NONMINORITY $264,070.30 2005 NONMINORITY $26,114.76 2004 NONMINORITY $306,545.40 2006 NONMINORITY $135,688.50 2007 NONMINORITY $274,180.00 2007 NONMINORITY $34,126.04 2005 NONMINORITY $189,863.00 2005 NONMINORITY $11,497.85 2007 NONMINORITY $15,400.00 2003 NONMINORITY $7,700.00 2006 NONMINORITY $19,880.00 2005 NONMINORITY $130,105.76 2005 NONMINORITY $69,700.00 2005 NONMINORITY $140,850.06 2006 NONMINORITY $5,526.85 2004 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-51 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H563901C H601401C H681601C H636301C H583901C H457303C H526701C H659301C H436701C H636601C H584701C H458401C H538101C H584601C H407601C H614801C H341401C H578201C SB36501C SB36901C H622201C H624401C SH28601C H578201C H591101C H516301C H591301C H590001C H605001C H458401C SS50801C H586401C H551901C H576801C H595503C H527801C H458201C H545501C H545501C H591501C H529901C H617801C H649301C H625901C H670201C H578301C H541701C H538101C H578201C H591101C H591301C H568603C H659301C H447201C H210701C H636001C H466501C SUB NAME PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PHILLIPS THREE INC PHILLIPS THREE INC PHILLIPS THREE INC PHOENIX DEMOLITION COMPANY AND SALVAGE INC PHOENIX NATIONAL LABORATORIES PHOENIX NATIONAL LABORATORIES PHYSICAL RESOURCE ENGINEERING INC PHYSICAL RESOURCE ENGINEERING INC PINE RIVER CONSTRUCTION INC PIPELINE SERVICES INC PIPELINE SERVICES INC PIPELINE SERVICES INC PIPELINE SERVICES INC PLATEAU ENGINEERING INC PLATEAU ENGINEERING INC PLATEAU ENGINEERING INC PLATEAU ENGINEERING INC PLATEAU ENGINEERING INC PLATEAU ENGINEERING INC PLATEAU ENGINEERING INC POCO TRUCKING POCO TRUCKING POCO TRUCKING POCO TRUCKING POCO TRUCKING PREACH INC PREACH INC PREACH INC PREACH INC PREACH INC PREACH INC PREACH INC PREACH INC PREACH INC PREACH INC PREACH INC PREACH INC PREACH INC PREACH INC PRECISION PINE & TIMBER PRECON OF ARIZONA PREFERRED CONCRETE PUMPING INC PREFERRED CONCRETE PUMPING INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $10,188.94 2003 NONMINORITY C $223,672.46 2004 NONMINORITY C $72,345.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $140,850.06 2006 NONMINORITY C $101,815.89 2004 NONMINORITY C $2,650.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $40,530.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $109,441.12 2007 NONMINORITY C $50,216.04 2004 NONMINORITY C $192,943.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $80,351.91 2004 NONMINORITY C $16,910.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $8,107.11 2004 NONMINORITY C $104,434.20 2004 NONMINORITY C $355,338.05 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $15,283.20 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $42,983.15 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,300.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $1,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $1,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $8,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $4,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $47,549.80 2006 NONMINORITY C $367,155.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $800.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $53,835.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $44,800.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $11,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $8,600.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $202,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $16,700.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $8,800.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $6,200.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $79,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $46,400.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $2,080.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $17,400.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $15,050.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $15,050.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $142,349.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $133,990.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $49,188.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $28,439.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $34,647.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $2,348.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $165,850.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $3,861.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $169,413.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $195,886.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $202,554.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $48,587.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $86,422.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $2,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $60,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $148,226.08 2005 NONMINORITY C $3,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $20,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-52 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H510401C H463901C H528206C H451001C H587601C H390201C H633401C H602701C H599901C H614801C H556301C H561801C H489301C H436101C H578301C H578201C H457303C H578201C H468101C H549401C H441502C H591201C H441502C H593301C H601401C H658401C H526701C H441502C SH28201C H600001C SS50001C H595501C H463901C H622801C SS49901C H595544C H584401C H458401C H568603C H341401C H615501C H584801C H591301C H644001C H460301C H614201C H602701C H614101C H636301C H683001C H637001C H648201C H613801C H636301C H591201C H591001C H679101C SUB NAME PREFERRED CONCRETE PUMPING INC PREFERRED CONCRETE PUMPING INC PREFERRED CONCRETE PUMPING INC PREFERRED CONCRETE PUMPING INC PREFERRED CONCRETE PUMPING INC PRICE ENTERPRISES, LLC PRO CONCRETE CUTTING INC DBA NORTHERN AZ SAWCUTTING AND CORING PRO CONCRETE CUTTING INC DBA NORTHERN AZ SAWCUTTING AND CORING PRO CONCRETE CUTTING INC DBA NORTHERN AZ SAWCUTTING AND CORING PRO CONCRETE CUTTING INC DBA NORTHERN AZ SAWCUTTING AND CORING PRODUCTION CONTRACTING PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES INC PROFORCE INC PROFORCE INC PROGRESSIVE CONCRETE WORKS PROGRESSIVE CONCRETE WORKS PROJECT INFORMATION ASSOC PROJECT INFORMATION ASSOC PROJECT INFORMATION ASSOC PULICE CONSTRUCTION INC QUAIL CORPORATION INC QUAIL CORPORATION INC QUAIL CORPORATION INC QUAIL CORPORATION INC QUAIL CORPORATION INC QUAIL CORPORATION INC QUAIL CORPORATION INC QUALITY TESTING LLC QUALITY TESTING LLC QUALITY TESTING LLC QUALITY TESTING LLC QUALITY TESTING LLC QUALITY TESTING LLC QUALITY TESTING LLC R & B TRUCKING R D SANDERS CONTRACTING COMPANY LLC R J C CONTRACTING INC R J C CONTRACTING INC R J C CONTRACTING INC R J C CONTRACTING INC R J C CONTRACTING INC R J C CONTRACTING INC R J C CONTRACTING INC R J C CONTRACTING INC R J C CONTRACTING INC R J C CONTRACTING INC R L WHITES WATER HAULING SERVICES R L WHITES WATER HAULING SERVICES R L WHITES WATER HAULING SERVICES R L WHITES WATER HAULING SERVICES R L WHITES WATER HAULING SERVICES R L WHITES WATER HAULING SERVICES R L WHITES WATER HAULING SERVICES R L WHITES WATER HAULING SERVICES R L WHITES WATER HAULING SERVICES SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $11,884.20 2005 NONMINORITY C $3,500.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $3,190.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $7,924.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $1,779.20 2002 NONMINORITY C $12,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $1,120.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $7,130.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $1,120.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $9,875.20 2005 NONMINORITY C $102,740.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $25,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $63,590.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $63,590.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $136,010.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $259,600.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $4,797.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $239,741.01 2006 NONMINORITY C $43,500.00 2003 AFRICAN AMERICAN C $95,000.00 2004 AFRICAN AMERICAN C $36,000.00 2003 AFRICAN AMERICAN C $65,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $48,150.40 2003 NONMINORITY C $5,883.81 2004 NONMINORITY C $11,750.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $4,940.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $22,305.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $25,600.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $70,736.80 2007 NONMINORITY C $3,000.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $20,000.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $30,094.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $21,159.08 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $1,000.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $15,000.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $3,000.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $15,600.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $18,600.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $8,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $18,990.78 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $36,510.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $52,280.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,035.50 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $18,570.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $229,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $83,805.55 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $40,553.40 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $21,644.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $13,200.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $22,100.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $20,800.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $33,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $1,800.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $13,200.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $30,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $20,800.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $9,600.00 2006 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-53 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H636701C H614401C H615301C H664901C H636601C H576701C H584401C H592401C SL44103C H678001C H574501C H586001C H415901C H585801C H614201C H524801C H614901C H629501C H502501C H557101C H526401C H615501C H483102C H549401C H447201C H584401C H355201C H416001C H524401C H589601C H561801C H636101C H460401C SB40701C H595502C H556901C H622201C H550601C H584801C H581701C H556201C H664901C H425601C HX13702C H591601C H555701C H556601C H526601C H526501C H659301C H535501C H586301C H554401C H585101C H585601C H556401C H636601C SUB NAME R L WHITES WATER HAULING SERVICES R L WHITES WATER HAULING SERVICES R L WHITES WATER HAULING SERVICES R L WHITES WATER HAULING SERVICES R L WHITES WATER HAULING SERVICES R M C A T ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES R M C A T ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES R M C A T ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES R S BELL AND SONS CONCRETE R S T LAND SURVEYING INC R W K ELECTRIC CO INC RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $23,040.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $10,400.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $6,840.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $120,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $38,400.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $18,455.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $3,580.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $11,421.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $22,600.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $95,976.20 2007 NONMINORITY C $30,368.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $10,800.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $9,692.50 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $5,016.35 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $58,435.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $32,785.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $34,625.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $42,025.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $23,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $12,948.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $14,975.08 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $10,605.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $16,089.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $84,020.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $5,700.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $8,620.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $45,340.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $8,520.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $8,600.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $20,300.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $1,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $20,225.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $1,750.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $41,228.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $28,465.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $1,400.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,025.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $28,242.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,550.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,400.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,260.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $1,360.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,880.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $9,750.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $22,340.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $34,770.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $24,540.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,695.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $72,430.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $9,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $8,800.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $25,100.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $45,200.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $13,317.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $9,280.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $95,150.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-54 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H528501C H608201C H458401C H611501C H559701C H584701C H410401C H536601C H614601C H524601C H550601C H568603C H595508C H434501C H586201C H460301C SH27801C H541701C H528203C H434701C H595506C H664901C H561801C H545501C H583901C H569701C H581701C H706001C H626401C H557201C H555701C H556601C H545501C H578301C H585301C H425601C H436101C H490801C H415901C H578201C H636001C H526901C H655601C H549401C H612701C H572201C H458401C H595503C H527501C H554401C H585601C H644001C H603101C H483102C H678001C H532301C H608201C SUB NAME RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RAINBOW REFINING CO RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $23,100.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $6,460.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $5,825.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $41,105.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $19,715.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $85,100.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $33,503.70 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $12,248.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $28,050.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $41,730.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $7,880.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $332,420.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $45,120.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $18,960.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $10,450.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $24,100.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $49,478.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $92,523.80 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,040.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $9,920.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $249,480.30 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $827,791.40 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $83,832.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $47,090.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $20,513.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $7,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,620.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $648,827.15 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $23,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $20,880.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,995.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $25,480.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $47,090.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $253,080.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $21,360.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $5,560.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $283,646.60 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $10,560.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $203,258.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $19,217.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $17,220.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $30,880.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $18,700.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $44,579.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $42,880.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $15,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $97,480.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $76,450.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $39,900.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $753,930.80 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $5,600.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $79,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $26,629.40 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $16,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $54,310.90 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,940.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $10,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-55 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H591501C H585101C H416001C H210701C H441502C H460401C H591301C H527901C H625901C H538101C H578201C H568604C SS49901C H681601C H633601C H460301C H645101C H600001C H534801C H584701C H622801C SS50001C H468101C H458301C H584201C H585901C H643401C H636001C H548301C H576701C H447201C H615501C H617801C H578201C H407601C H524801C H615501C H510401C H592401C H423901C H303001C H584801C H494201C H503706C H706001C H458201C H552301C H578301C H556301C H526601C H416001C H341401C H540201C H528501C H584601C H610001C H451001C SUB NAME RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC RECON INC REDS DUMP TRUCK SERVICE REDS DUMP TRUCK SERVICE REDS DUMP TRUCK SERVICE REED LANDSCAPE REIDHEAD SAND & ROCK INC RENEGADE TRUCKING RENEGADE TRUCKING REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $131,623.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,640.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $124,476.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $65,026.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $26,600.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $26,784.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $456,502.90 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $8,480.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $50,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $29,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $32,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $15,600.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $366,736.12 2006 NONMINORITY C $19,200.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $2,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $2,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $18,636.34 2006 NONMINORITY C $105,227.85 2004 NONMINORITY C $288,361.47 2003 NONMINORITY C $65,439.31 2004 NONMINORITY C $21,415.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $18,072.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $85,346.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $48,961.18 2003 NONMINORITY C $76,901.60 2004 NONMINORITY C $21,278.40 2004 NONMINORITY C $66,368.20 2007 NONMINORITY C $14,425.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $6,337.80 2002 NONMINORITY C $20,760.55 2005 NONMINORITY C $875,663.20 2002 NONMINORITY C $37,700.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $128,969.82 2007 NONMINORITY C $2,076,612.32 2006 NONMINORITY C $1,159,028.38 2004 NONMINORITY C $47,954.50 2002 NONMINORITY C $64,271.34 2006 NONMINORITY C $234,303.46 2005 NONMINORITY C $807,393.75 2005 NONMINORITY C $52,891.49 2005 NONMINORITY C $222,684.89 2002 NONMINORITY C $13,424.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $16,066.20 2007 NONMINORITY C $85,170.96 2005 NONMINORITY C $78,633.51 2007 NONMINORITY C $90,522.40 2005 NONMINORITY C $3,472.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $176,168.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $19,367.20 2004 NONMINORITY C $14,373.99 2002 NONMINORITY C $108,428.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $300,454.03 2007 NONMINORITY C $109,940.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $31,367.44 2002 NONMINORITY C $18,153.72 2004 NONMINORITY C $18,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $88,509.43 2004 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-56 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H595502C H319003C H635701C SL46801C SS53401C H525201C SS53401C H524301C H554401C H463901C H584201C H600001C H466501C SS45101C H585301C H584901C H601401C H578101C H591101C H629401C H595503C H655601C H625901C H568604C H591601C H463801C H614401C H526501C H636301C H527801C H525401C H319003C H527501C H303001C H636001C H510401C H463201C H548301C H528203C SS44701C H610301C H525601C H375301C H622201C H540201C H303802C SS57301C H636301C H463601C HX09101C H590001C H614301C H526201C SS53401C H503706C SS61001C H526001C SUB NAME REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD RICHIE TRUCKING RICKER ATKINSON MCBEE & ASSOC INC RICKER ATKINSON MCBEE & ASSOC INC RIDDER CONCRETE INC RIGCO CONTRACTING INC RIGHT CHOICE TOO RINKER MATERIALS RIVERA MASONRY INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $129,615.58 2003 NONMINORITY $329,882.24 2002 NONMINORITY $3,200.00 2006 NONMINORITY $3,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $58,625.00 2007 NONMINORITY $3,993.00 2002 NONMINORITY $15,000.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $12,800.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $125,820.00 2006 NONMINORITY $67,947.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $96,252.80 2004 NONMINORITY $17,492.00 2004 NONMINORITY $63,877.24 2005 NONMINORITY $7,758.74 2005 NONMINORITY $45,820.00 2004 NONMINORITY $46,940.00 2004 NONMINORITY $220,482.20 2004 NONMINORITY $108,754.89 2004 NONMINORITY $225,297.57 2005 NONMINORITY $38,359.00 2004 NONMINORITY $36,623.46 2004 NONMINORITY $27,244.49 2005 NONMINORITY $21,378.00 2004 NONMINORITY $410,285.58 2005 NONMINORITY $20,933.50 2004 NONMINORITY $43,885.80 2002 NONMINORITY $52,463.50 2007 NONMINORITY $13,261.43 2002 NONMINORITY $64,925.62 2006 NONMINORITY $15,997.50 2002 NONMINORITY $29,105.50 2002 NONMINORITY $161,123.32 2002 NONMINORITY $96,128.52 2002 NONMINORITY $62,881.80 2002 NONMINORITY $35,860.64 2006 NONMINORITY $63,197.60 2005 NONMINORITY $43,885.80 2002 NONMINORITY $8,642.05 2002 NONMINORITY $4,195.00 2003 NONMINORITY $12,068.00 2003 NONMINORITY $41,390.00 2003 NONMINORITY $120,043.00 2002 NONMINORITY $17,555.63 2002 NONMINORITY $1,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $21,190.00 2002 NONMINORITY $41,934.00 2002 NONMINORITY $10,693.64 2006 NONMINORITY $64,925.62 2006 NONMINORITY $45,249.08 2002 NONMINORITY $9,504.00 2002 NONMINORITY $6,632.20 2006 NONMINORITY $37,160.50 2005 NONMINORITY $12,787.75 2002 NONMINORITY $24,501.00 2007 NONMINORITY $30,087.26 2005 NONMINORITY $5,203.56 2007 NONMINORITY $43,881.29 2002 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-57 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H524301C SS49901C H463901C H434701C H526701C H531901C H511801C H556701C H586001C H648601C HX15701C H526601C H589601C H706001C H629501C H586301C H595504C H535501C H410401C H557101C H557001C H528501C H617801C H600001C H636101C H681601C H341401C H554401C H341401C H683001C H341401C H679101C H636601C HX17401C H633601C SS49901C H595544C H631001C H525501C H639201C SS50001C H434701C H601502C H521001C H625901C H670201C H601501C H601401C H612701C H540201C H613701C H441502C H622801C H503703C H528203C H531901C SS44701C SUB NAME ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROADWAY ELECTRIC LLC ROADWAY ELECTRIC LLC ROADWAY ELECTRIC LLC ROADWAY ELECTRIC LLC ROADWAY ELECTRIC LLC ROADWAY ELECTRIC LLC ROADWAY ELECTRIC LLC ROADWAY ELECTRIC LLC ROADWAY ELECTRIC LLC ROADWAY ELECTRIC LLC ROADWAY ELECTRIC LLC ROADWAY ELECTRIC LLC ROADWAY ELECTRIC LLC ROADWAY ELECTRIC LLC ROADWAY ELECTRIC LLC ROADWAY ELECTRIC LLC ROADWAY ELECTRIC LLC ROBERT HALL TRUCKING ROCKBREAKERS CONTRACTING INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT RENTALS LLC ROCKY MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT RENTALS LLC ROCKY MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT RENTALS LLC ROCKY MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT RENTALS LLC ROCKY MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT RENTALS LLC ROCKY MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT RENTALS LLC RODI TRUCKING RONS GRADING ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $28,876.80 2002 NONMINORITY $8,219.01 2006 NONMINORITY $26,252.30 2003 NONMINORITY $64,392.80 2003 NONMINORITY $19,039.50 2005 NONMINORITY $10,823.50 2003 NONMINORITY $65,875.70 2005 NONMINORITY $30,850.00 2003 NONMINORITY $1,700.00 2004 NONMINORITY $106,985.00 2006 NONMINORITY $59,973.00 2006 NONMINORITY $1,700.00 2002 NONMINORITY $3,400.00 2003 NONMINORITY $941,508.36 2007 NONMINORITY $15,539.00 2005 NONMINORITY $1,789.00 2004 NONMINORITY $219,069.00 2007 NONMINORITY $2,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $162,175.00 2002 NONMINORITY $1,700.00 2004 NONMINORITY $12,145.00 2003 NONMINORITY $2,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $1,922,178.50 2007 NONMINORITY $175,430.00 2004 NONMINORITY $1,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY $9,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY $194,500.00 2007 NONMINORITY $120,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $130,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $6,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $10,400.00 2007 NONMINORITY $14,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $56,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $11,191.00 2007 NONMINORITY $6,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $15,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $30,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $20,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $3,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $30,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $40,430.00 2003 NONMINORITY $36,600.00 2005 NONMINORITY $101,450.00 2005 NONMINORITY $151,310.00 2004 NONMINORITY $42,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY $55,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $73,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $8,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $25,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $13,282.00 2006 NONMINORITY $133,480.00 2003 NONMINORITY $15,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $94,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $16,815.00 2003 NONMINORITY $9,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $25,800.00 2003 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-58 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H595504C H489301C H457303C H595502C H557001C SB36501C H595503C SB36901C H458201C H614301C H644001C H468101C H447201C SS50001C H550601C H576801C H538101C H601502C SB40701C H706001C H670201C H601501C SB36101C H463601C H516301C SB36901C H595502C H468101C H510601C H578201C H664901C H463801C H341401C H617801C H610001C H497201C H615501C H407601C H554401C H511801C H463301C H510401C H529901C H538101C H591101C SB40701C H584501C H649301C H582301C H637103C H661501C H610001C H664901C H608201C H436701C H660301C H659001C SUB NAME ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROY HAUGHT EXCAVATING INC ROYAL SIGN COMPANY INC ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO RST LAND SURVEYING INC RST LAND SURVEYING INC RST LAND SURVEYING INC RST LAND SURVEYING INC RST LAND SURVEYING INC RST LAND SURVEYING INC RST LAND SURVEYING INC RST LAND SURVEYING INC RST LAND SURVEYING INC RST LAND SURVEYING INC RUGERS H20 TRUCKING LLC RURAL ELECTRIC INC RURAL ELECTRIC INC S & B INSTALLATION LLC S & B INSTALLATION LLC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $103,125.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $48,450.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $43,600.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $33,800.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $5,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $15,750.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $101,755.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $15,750.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $193,365.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $20,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $37,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $90,630.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $49,950.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $19,075.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $195,048.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $602,784.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $375,998.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $145,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $90,720.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $1,383,340.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $100,872.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $173,724.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $92,565.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $131,360.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $183,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $61,410.50 2003 NONMINORITY C $157,797.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $28,340.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $965,991.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $5,051,488.50 2006 NONMINORITY C $464,553.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $152,542.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $342,760.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $2,634,396.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $1,011,810.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $255,060.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $129,102.50 2006 NONMINORITY C $1,949,585.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $635,965.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $549,953.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $152,542.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $592,936.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $425,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $440,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $425,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $9,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $15,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $50,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $5,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $8,350.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $4,733.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $850,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $150,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $118,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $119,616.16 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $35,567.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $17,160.00 2006 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-59 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # SS53401C H447201C H210701C H610001C H497201C H605101C H599901C H633401C H313502C H601502C H434701C H502801C H436701C H555601C H556501C H601501C H552901C H625901C H591301C SH28101C H585201C H528206C H466501C H434701C H613701C H595508C H667001C H643401C H601502C H568603C H578201C H643401C H529901C H601501C H560101C H463801C H610001C H538101C H591001C H568604C H592401C H563901C H591301C H534801C H319003C H591501C H407601C H425601C H466203C H516301C H463301C H463201C H468101C H664901C H578301C H664901C H521001C SUB NAME S C LEGACY CONTRACTING LLC S J A INC DBA ANDERSON DRILLING S M PAINTING CO INC S O S EXTERMINATING INC S W C A ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS S W P P P CONSULTANTS S W P P SOLUTIONS LLC S W P P SOLUTIONS LLC SABINO ELECTRIC SAFETY CONTROL CO INC SAFETY CONTROL CO INC SAFETY CONTROL CO INC SAFETY CONTROL CO INC SAFETY CONTROL CO INC SAFETY CONTROL CO INC SAFETY CONTROL CO INC SAFETY CONTROL CO INC SAFETY CONTROL CO INC SAFETY CONTROL CO INC SAGUARO SPECIALTIES LLC SAGUARO TRUCKING CO INC SAGUARO TRUCKING CO INC SAGUARO TRUCKING CO INC SAGUARO TRUCKING CO INC SAGUARO TRUCKING CO INC SAV ON FENCE CO INC SECURITY FENCE OF ARIZONA INC SECURITY FENCE OF ARIZONA INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SHAWN ANDERSON GRADING LLC SHOTCRETE ENTERPRISES INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $211,378.20 2007 NONMINORITY C $185,880.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $36,183.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $25,460.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $17,752.08 2003 NONMINORITY C $12,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $2,250.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $2,250.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $9,240.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $10,608.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $113,114.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $25,120.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $9,300.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $11,600.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $5,537.50 2003 NONMINORITY C $21,001.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $28,545.68 2004 NONMINORITY C $15,612.90 2004 NONMINORITY C $57,667.80 2004 NONMINORITY C $42,609.50 2007 NONMINORITY C $11,840.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $105,512.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,840.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $38,160.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $61,446.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $143,786.26 2005 NONMINORITY C $237,160.45 2007 NONMINORITY C $355,914.02 2007 NONMINORITY C $5,335.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $180,412.87 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $267,900.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $645,078.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $88,665.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $17,400.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $34,435.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $19,884.06 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $603,821.02 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $213,425.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $79,729.12 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $255,006.04 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $17,950.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $8,984.56 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $111,780.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $39,137.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $109,230.45 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $155,500.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $54,835.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $21,135.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $17,100.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $35,705.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $19,884.06 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $19,884.06 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $24,330.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $193,423.75 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $200,037.65 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $15,750.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $127,114.70 2005 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-60 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H563901C H644001C H664901C H541701C H569001C H610001C H549401C H586301C H586001C H210701C H584401C H444401C H578101C H614101C HX16101C H681601C H572201C H463501C H375301C H410401C H524801C H643401C SS50001C H573801C H458401C H610001C H545501C H545501C SH27801C H659301C H589801C H610001C H527701C H503703C H649301C H375301C H524301C H586301C H614901C H466501C H355201C H585201C H611501C H543101C SB36401C H584901C H586001C H601401C H591601C H453501C SB36701C SB36901C H556901C SH27301C H587601C H463901C H613301C SUB NAME SHOTCRETE SPECIALTIES INC SHOTCRETE SPECIALTIES INC SHOTCRETE SPECIALTIES INC SHOTCRETE SPECIALTIES INC SHOTCRETE SPECIALTIES INC SHOTCRETE SPECIALTIES INC SHOTCRETE SPECIALTIES INC SHOW LOW CONSTRUCTION INC SHOW LOW CONSTRUCTION INC SHOW LOW DRYWALL SIERRA BLANCA HAULING LLC SIERRITA MINING & RANCHING CO SILBERCOM TRUCKING INC SILVER CREEK SAW AND SEAL LLC SINAGUA PAVING INC SLADE ENTERPRISES LLC SOUTHWEST CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION SOUTHWEST CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION SOUTHWEST CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION SOUTHWEST CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION SOUTHWEST CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION SOUTHWEST ENVIROSCAPES INC SOUTHWEST GROUND CONTROL LLC SOUTHWEST GROUND CONTROL LLC SOUTHWEST HAZARD CONTROL INC SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL RIGGING SOUTHWEST ROCK PRODUCTS LLC SOUTHWEST ROCK PRODUCTS LLC SOUTHWEST SLURRY SEAL INC SOUTHWEST SLURRY SEAL INC SOUTHWEST SLURRY SEAL INC SOUTHWEST SLURRY SEAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $116,874.50 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $79,036.02 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $194,986.95 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $13,090.61 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $6,227.46 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $38,901.50 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $122,885.20 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $8,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $6,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $25,269.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $15,600.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $6,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $100,640.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $3,300.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $11,544.50 2005 NONMINORITY C $9,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $108,025.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $18,030.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $26,646.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $15,280.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $15,562.50 2002 NONMINORITY C $2,765,335.65 2007 NONMINORITY C $500.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $3,600.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $2,375.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $57,500.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $428,666.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $428,666.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $35,326.08 2004 NONMINORITY C $16,250.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $65,400.66 2003 NONMINORITY C $8,772.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $9,985.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $109,690.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $8,373.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $8,470.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $39,015.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $11,179.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $45,012.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $7,668.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $9,882.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $7,668.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $62,995.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $9,138.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $11,670.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $25,392.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $7,938.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $52,480.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $11,598.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $4,645.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $3,415.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $4,526.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $12,376.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $11,670.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $5,475.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $4,596.80 2003 NONMINORITY C $11,440.00 2005 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-61 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H561401C H586401C H516301C H612801C H502801C H556101C H319003C H591501C H529901C H434701C H578301C H578201C H538101C H591101C H591301C H610001C H578101C H655601C H568604C H532801C H407601C H586401C H524601C H502501C H463201C H557001C H460401C H610401C H617801C H564201C H559701C H502801C H555701C H636301C H585101C H463301C H526401C H510601C H563901C H319003C H591601C H639201C H556901C H578201C H555801C H556201C H613901C H528501C H613301C H555901C SB40701C H526901C H458401C SS50901C H612701C H576801C H529901C SUB NAME SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPECIALIZED SERVICES CO SPECIALIZED SERVICES CO SPECIALIZED SERVICES CO SPECIALIZED SERVICES CO SPECIALIZED SERVICES CO SPECIALIZED SERVICES CO SPECIALIZED SERVICES CO SPECIALIZED SERVICES CO SPECIALIZED SERVICES CO SPECIALIZED SERVICES CO SPECIALIZED SERVICES CO SPECIALIZED SERVICES CO SPECIALIZED SERVICES CO SPECIALIZED SERVICES CO SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $7,008.00 2004 NONMINORITY $18,590.00 2002 NONMINORITY $59,840.00 2003 NONMINORITY $4,562.50 2005 NONMINORITY $16,968.00 2003 NONMINORITY $42,175.00 2003 NONMINORITY $213,041.00 2002 NONMINORITY $50,910.00 2004 NONMINORITY $216,090.00 2002 NONMINORITY $9,800.00 2003 NONMINORITY $128,510.00 2006 NONMINORITY $221,480.00 2006 NONMINORITY $246,013.00 2004 NONMINORITY $127,810.00 2005 NONMINORITY $132,004.00 2004 NONMINORITY $4,500.00 2003 NONMINORITY $14,400.00 2004 NONMINORITY $48,212.00 2005 NONMINORITY $97,936.00 2005 NONMINORITY $69,269.00 2002 NONMINORITY $31,475.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $3,662.50 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $33,805.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $116,450.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $11,200.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $5,320.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $60,000.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $4,200.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $245,600.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $80,000.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $24,350.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $72,000.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $18,275.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $31,000.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $67,600.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $11,200.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $18,190.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $5,000.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $70,000.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $189,644.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $35,000.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $51,850.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $18,765.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $546,610.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $8,400.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $10,830.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $105,000.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $28,040.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $39,750.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $20,000.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $16,500.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $44,465.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $250,000.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $15,000.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $39,400.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $10,000.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $325,000.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-62 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H463501C H584701C H554401C H578301C H521001C H503706C H434701C H615101C H611501C H644001C H463601C H636301C H583901C SS57301C H537002C H706001C H584401C H683001C H572201C H612801C H524301C H560101C SS53401C H510601C H210701C H556301C H453501C H303802C H610401C SL46601C H556001C H510401C H633401C H528206C H600001C SS50901C H319003C H556101C H525901C H643401C H599901C H611501C H497201C H556401C H210701C H407601C H648201C H591601C H612201C H584401C H610001C H595544C H458201C H591101C H615501C H646301C H537002C SUB NAME SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPRAY SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL SPRAY SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL SPRAY SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL SPRAY SYSTEMS OF ARIZONA INC DBA SPRAY SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL STANTEC CONSULTING INC STANTEC CONSULTING INC STANTEC CONSULTING INC STANTEC CONSULTING INC STANTEC CONSULTING INC STANTEC CONSULTING INC STANTEC CONSULTING INC STANTEC CONSULTING INC STANTEC CONSULTING INC STANTEC CONSULTING INC STANTEC CONSULTING INC STANTEC CONSULTING INC STANTEC CONSULTING INC STANTEC CONSULTING INC STANTEC CONSULTING INC STANTEC CONSULTING INC STARTANGLE LLC STARTANGLE LLC STARTANGLE LLC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $5,600.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $92,450.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $288,000.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $229,850.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $57,600.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $60,000.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $48,000.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $33,550.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $30,300.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $65,000.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $5,600.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $31,000.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $23,300.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $16,000.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $7,200.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $175,050.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $14,025.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $26,000.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $21,860.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $4,500.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $13,000.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $3,384.50 2004 NONMINORITY $35,775.00 2007 NONMINORITY $2,750.00 2006 NONMINORITY $3,512.00 2005 NONMINORITY $11,825.00 2004 NONMINORITY $21,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $180,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $4,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $7,085.00 2003 NONMINORITY $8,203.00 2003 NONMINORITY $193,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $20,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $13,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $35,750.00 2004 NONMINORITY $33,784.00 2004 NONMINORITY $740,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $15,875.00 2003 NONMINORITY $21,540.00 2002 NONMINORITY $5,800.00 2007 NONMINORITY $20,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $27,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN $85,975.92 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN $18,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN $114,451.50 2005 NONMINORITY $40,550.00 2004 NONMINORITY $398,797.50 2005 NONMINORITY $37,221.00 2004 NONMINORITY $25,437.50 2003 NONMINORITY $77,736.53 2005 NONMINORITY $626,060.00 2003 NONMINORITY $5,525.00 2005 NONMINORITY $329,509.60 2005 NONMINORITY $235,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $21,900.00 2006 NONMINORITY $6,720.00 2004 NONMINORITY $504,914.00 2004 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-63 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H637102C H563901C H319003C H637001C H625901C H637101C H639201C H624401C H637103C H615101C H605301C H595502C H483102C H502501C H635401C H584701C HX16101C H612801C H556901C H613301C H559701C H614201C H555701C H581701C H584401C H585501C H524601C H614101C H525001C H612701C H556201C H457303C H615501C H585601C H552901C H447201C H407601C H595501C H611501C H416001C H556401C H527901C H503703C H554401C H568604C H706001C H617801C H659001C SS53401C SS49901C SS49101C H602701C SB40101C H564201C H313502C H573402C H585501C SUB NAME STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STINGER WELDING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STRAIGHTLINE UTILITIES LLC STRAIGHTLINE UTILITIES LLC STRUCTURAL GRACE INC STRUCTURAL GRACE INC STRUCTURAL GRACE INC SULLIVAN PAVING LLC SULLIVAN TRUCKING SUN DIAL MASONRY INC SUN DIAL MASONRY INC SUN SET TRUCKING SUN STATE ELECTRIC OF ARIZONA INC SUN WEST GOLF & RECLAMATION INC SUN WEST GOLF & RECLAMATION INC SUN WEST GOLF & RECLAMATION INC SUNBELT RECLAMATION INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $166,478.90 2004 NONMINORITY C $35,603.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $87,400.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $82,875.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $1,183,758.23 2004 NONMINORITY C $102,704.82 2003 NONMINORITY C $466,199.20 2006 NONMINORITY C $212,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $426,531.50 2004 NONMINORITY C $44,984.90 2005 NONMINORITY C $51,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $119,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $98,003.79 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $136,400.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,650.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $125,759.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,996.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $99,400.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $70,200.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $382,275.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $74,287.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $80,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $9,450.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $308,835.61 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $95,200.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $30,820.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $66,004.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $17,280.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $17,280.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $70,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $143,960.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $239,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $178,100.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $13,400.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $38,207.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,900.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $25,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $10,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $75,400.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $120,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $37,330.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $60,202.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $181,898.20 2004 NONMINORITY C $312,436.50 2006 NONMINORITY C $735,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $210,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $443,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,050.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $7,800.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $9,375.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $48,324.20 2003 NONMINORITY C $7,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $49,783.59 2003 NONMINORITY C $136,920.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $36,930.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $67,860.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $10,359.25 2004 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-64 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H664901C H429201C H578201C HX17401C H601502C H617801C H416001C H706001C H521001C H578201C H655601C H578301C H584201C H591301C H625901C H447201C H526401C H591501C H529901C H538101C H643401C H466501C H556701C H525901C H585201C H556301C H458301C H633201C H210701C H578101C H568603C H510601C SH28201C H545501C H319003C H545501C HX19201C H636501C H635301C H524101C SS44701C H605201C H616901C H633401C H390201C H586201C H595506C H614401C H341401C H631001C H614601C H613801C H585101C H635701C H614201C H636001C H629401C SUB NAME SUNBELTS CONVEYERED AGGREGATE DELIVERY LLC SUNBELTS CONVEYERED AGGREGATE DELIVERY LLC SUNBELTS CONVEYERED AGGREGATE DELIVERY LLC SUNLAND INC ASPHALT AND SEALCOATING SUNLAND INC ASPHALT AND SEALCOATING SUNLAND INC ASPHALT AND SEALCOATING SUNLAND INC ASPHALT AND SEALCOATING SUNLAND INC ASPHALT AND SEALCOATING SUNLAND INC ASPHALT AND SEALCOATING SUNRISE CONSTRUCTION INC SUNRISE CONSTRUCTION INC SUNRISE CONSTRUCTION INC SUNRISE CONSTRUCTION INC SUNRISE CONSTRUCTION INC DBA SUNRISE TRUCKING SUNRISE CONSTRUCTION INC DBA SUNRISE TRUCKING SUNRISE CONSTRUCTION INC DBA SUNRISE TRUCKING SUNRISE CONSTRUCTION INC DBA SUNRISE TRUCKING SUNRISE CONSTRUCTION INC DBA SUNRISE TRUCKING SUNRISE CONSTRUCTION INC DBA SUNRISE TRUCKING SUNRISE CONSTRUCTION INC DBA SUNRISE TRUCKING SUNRISE EXTERIOR COMMERCIAL SERVICES LLC SUNRISE TRUCKING INC SUNRISE TRUCKING INC SUNRISE TRUCKING INC SUNRISE TRUCKING INC SUNRISE TRUCKING INC SUNRISE TRUCKING INC SURFACE CONTRACTING INC SURFACE CONTRACTING INC SWAINE ASPHALT CORP T & T CONSTRUCTION INC T 4 ENTERPRISES INC DBA MAKE YOUR MARK T A C BUILDING CONTRACTORS INC T A CAID INDUSTRIES INC T A CAID INDUSTRIES INC T A CAID INDUSTRIES INC T A T TECHNOLOGIES LLC T A T TECHNOLOGIES LLC T A T TECHNOLOGIES LLC T A T TECHNOLOGIES LLC T B T CONSTRUCTION CO INC T B T CONSTRUCTION CO INC T B T CONSTRUCTION CO INC T B T CONSTRUCTION CO INC T J TRANSPORT T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $15,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $14,925.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $16,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $78,006.09 2007 NONMINORITY C $3,125.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $2,885,380.12 2007 NONMINORITY C $3,424.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $1,472,029.05 2007 NONMINORITY C $4,700.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $2,728,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $31,552.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $1,200,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $101,175.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,347,450.90 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $19,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $499,980.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $39,422.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $538,065.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $26,800.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $848,899.80 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $38,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $37,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $24,220.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $17,340.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $37,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $60,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $16,800.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $42,325.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $14,875.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $6,900.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $1,606,629.45 2004 NONMINORITY C $3,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $18,040.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $333,400.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $33,545.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $333,400.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $98,750.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $40,860.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $98,750.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $4,500.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $125,958.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $26,770.50 2007 NONMINORITY C $26,770.50 2007 NONMINORITY C $423,825.35 2007 NONMINORITY C $12,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $3,280.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $1,974.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $12,202.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $474,967.60 2007 NONMINORITY C $5,831.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $6,714.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $3,250.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $4,200.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $6,200.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $90,295.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $5,574.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $2,513.00 2004 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-65 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # HX16101C H635901C H614901C H615501C H637001C H585701C H577901C H635401C H615301C H612701C H612801C H613301C H636701C H659301C H407601C H525001C H613901C H584501C H584801C H637101C H636601C H534801C H584701C H658401C H503703C H584601C H458401C H635401C H584801C H601401C H615301C H614401C H502801C H556701C H629401C H576801C H637001C H564201C H584901C H636501C H639201C H460301C H585901C H589801C H556101C H595501C H636001C H635901C H451001C H585001C H549401C H615501C H524101C H611501C H659301C H615101C H525001C SUB NAME T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L L ELECTRIC INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $54,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $3,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $2,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $5,260.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $13,171.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $3,800.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $21,443.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $5,040.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $4,923.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $3,825.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $1,303.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $6,102.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $12,965.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $81,800.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $5,018.82 2004 NONMINORITY C $3,800.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $9,504.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $2,646.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $6,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $17,324.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $17,395.90 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $6,633.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,752.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,644.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $5,191.82 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,662.50 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,225.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $7,532.50 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $52,278.20 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $5,174.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $5,325.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,050.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,022.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $7,198.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $29,381.63 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $9,500.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,490.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $10,910.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $15,582.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,257.08 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $10,475.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,700.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $8,030.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,500.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,537.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,002.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,680.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $29,139.40 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,508.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $17,802.80 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,250.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,350.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $8,018.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-66 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H526901C H447201C H458201C H436701C H526601C H576701C H527701C H303802C H613901C H303001C H528501C H458101C H319003C H614901C H585701C SB36101C H540201C H584401C H584501C H614301C H468101C H613801C H585101C H503706C H407601C H527501C H589201C H526401C H612801C H458301C H614801C H602701C H526201C H375301C H526001C H595506C H497201C H631001C H595508C H592401C H560101C H563001C H534801C H541701C H605301C H658401C H605201C H616901C H441502C H468101C H585101C H502501C H613301C H483102C H457303C H524401C H664901C SUB NAME T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T L SMITH INC T PAC A DIVISION OF KIEWIT WESTERN CO T PAC A DIVISION OF KIEWIT WESTERN CO T PAC A DIVISION OF KIEWIT WESTERN CO T PAC A DIVISION OF KIEWIT WESTERN CO T PAC A DIVISION OF KIEWIT WESTERN CO T THERON CONSTRUCTION INC T WARNOCK TRUCKING INC TACIT SERVICES OF KINGMAN TACIT SERVICES OF KINGMAN TANNER CO YUMA TANNER CO YUMA TAURMAN ENTERPRISES INC TAURMAN ENTERPRISES INC TAURMAN ENTERPRISES INC TAURMAN ENTERPRISES INC TAURMAN ENTERPRISES INC TAURMAN ENTERPRISES INC TAURMAN ENTERPRISES INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $12,972.75 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $12,601.35 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $14,402.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,250.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,508.50 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $19,159.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $5,340.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $80,249.52 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $13,325.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $7,380.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $7,002.80 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,500.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $14,300.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,902.85 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $5,048.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,593.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $4,500.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $19,811.80 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,750.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $7,950.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,320.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $3,648.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $7,380.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $19,543.12 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $6,300.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $14,502.56 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $5,380.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,463.27 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,840.48 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,430.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,691.50 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $8,422.23 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $11,673.70 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $15,416.23 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $2,512.13 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $8,389.49 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $439,736.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $784,800.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $455,650.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $975,276.60 2003 NONMINORITY C $428,344.20 2003 NONMINORITY C $10,920.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $9,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $700.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $700.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $450,616.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $19,600.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $506,688.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $153,853.83 2002 NONMINORITY C $474,130.20 2005 NONMINORITY C $219,800.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $220,089.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $15,880.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $1,128,390.00 2006 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-67 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H595502C H591201C H524501C H527901C H659301C H468101C H568603C H581701C H416001C H591001C H556401C SS46701C H538101C H591101C H610001C H341401C H341401C H614801C H552301C SS61001C SS53401C H460301C H591101C H633601C H622801C H657701C H605001C SB40701C H614801C H638801C H537002C H612801C SS55901C SS42101C SS50901C HX16101C H447201C H643401C H683001C H410401C H538101C H568603C H375301C H664901C H610001C H578101C H549401C H447201C H584701C H319003C H683001C H584601C H458201C H510601C H319003C H574501C H581701C SUB NAME TAURMAN ENTERPRISES INC TAURMAN ENTERPRISES INC TAURMAN ENTERPRISES INC TAURMAN ENTERPRISES INC TAURMAN ENTERPRISES INC TAURMAN ENTERPRISES INC TAURMAN ENTERPRISES INC TAURMAN ENTERPRISES INC TAURMAN ENTERPRISES INC TAURMAN ENTERPRISES INC TAURMAN ENTERPRISES INC TEMPE CRANE INC TERRACON TERRACON THUNDERBOLT CONSTRUCTION CORP OF ARIZONA TIFFANY CONSTRUCTION CO TITAN TRUCKING TK TRUCKING TOM MULCAIRE CONTRACTING LLC TORRENT RESOURCES INC TORRENT RESOURCES INC TOTAL MAINTENANCE EROSION CONTROL LLC TOTAL MAINTENANCE EROSION CONTROL LLC TOTAL MAINTENANCE EROSION CONTROL LLC TRAFFIC MARKING LLC TRAFFIC SAFETY INC TRAFFIC SAFETY INC TRAFFIC SAFETY INC TRAFFIC SAFETY INC TRAFFICADE SERVICE INC DBA WORK ZONE SERVICES TRAFFICADE SERVICE INC DBA WORK ZONE SERVICES TRAFFICADE SERVICE INC DBA WORK ZONE SERVICES TRAFFICADE SERVICE INC DBA WORK ZONE SERVICES TRAFFICADE SERVICE INC DBA WORK ZONE SERVICES TRAFFICADE SERVICE INC DBA WORK ZONE SERVICES TRAFFICADE SERVICE INC DBA WORK ZONE SERVICES TREE PRO DBA PROGRESSIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC. TRICON CONTRACTING INC TRUESDELL CORP TRUESDELL CORP TRUESDELL CORP TRUESDELL CORP TRUESDELL CORP TRUESDELL CORP TRUESDELL CORP TRUESDELL CORP TRUESDELL CORP TRUESDELL CORP TRUESDELL CORP TRUESDELL CORP TRUESDELL CORP TRUESDELL CORP TRULY NOLEN OF AMERICA TRYNU TRUCKIN DBA CHAMBERS TRUCKING CORP TUCSON ASPHALT CONTRACTORS INC TUCSON ASPHALT CONTRACTORS INC TWELVE FORTY ONE GRADING INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $138,240.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $432,870.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $64,158.48 2003 NONMINORITY C $79,971.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $10,875.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $124,846.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $3,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $149,577.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $225,511.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $202,020.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $74,278.16 2003 NONMINORITY C $800.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $212,100.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $235,600.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $8,162,323.34 2003 NONMINORITY C $22,560.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $17,500.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $9,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $129,600.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $18,500.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $245,025.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $24,260.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $68,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $29,619.54 2007 NONMINORITY C $1,860.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $6,300.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $3,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $3,949.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $1,970.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $1,250.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $20,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $2,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $9,800.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $10,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $54,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $1,225.53 2005 NONMINORITY C $49,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $300.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $1,155,718.12 2007 NONMINORITY C $94,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $3,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $17,100.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $8,674.55 2002 NONMINORITY C $53,330.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $8,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $3,990.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $69,830.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $218,468.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $53,830.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $22,488.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $4,020.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $82,086.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $2,477.60 2005 NONMINORITY C $3,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $7,104.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $14,720.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $20,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-68 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H458401C H210701C H614801C H595506C H503703C H602701C H601401C H528501C H503706C H615501C H436701C H615101C H595503C H556101C H503706C H436101C H525001C H527501C H524601C H556001C H460401C H635901C H603101C H605101C H612801C H612701C H679101C H612701C H612801C H415901C H577901C H557101C HX15801C HX15801C SS49801C SS45101C H584701C H611501C H458401C H601502C H611501C H415901C H644001C H526401C H576701C H554401C H237805C H584601C H615301C H618301C H529901C H601501C H303802C H601501C H583901C H503703C H535501C SUB NAME TWELVE FORTY ONE GRADING INC U S INSULATION NORTHLAND DBA UNITED SUBCONTRACTORS INC UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $12,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $30,224.00 2005 NONMINORITY $237,565.00 2005 NATIVE AMERICAN $311,686.24 2005 NATIVE AMERICAN $224,200.00 2004 NATIVE AMERICAN $32,530.00 2005 NATIVE AMERICAN $5,000.00 2004 NATIVE AMERICAN $65,090.00 2002 NATIVE AMERICAN $80,000.00 2005 NATIVE AMERICAN $48,500.00 2006 NATIVE AMERICAN $30,400.00 2004 NATIVE AMERICAN $9,436.00 2005 NATIVE AMERICAN $722,982.00 2004 NATIVE AMERICAN $97,923.45 2003 NATIVE AMERICAN $1,125,737.71 2005 NATIVE AMERICAN $296,873.66 2004 NATIVE AMERICAN $54,762.00 2005 NATIVE AMERICAN $536,094.00 2002 NATIVE AMERICAN $98,245.00 2003 NATIVE AMERICAN $148,090.38 2003 NATIVE AMERICAN $137,800.00 2003 NATIVE AMERICAN $89,345.40 2006 NATIVE AMERICAN $29,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $6,682.00 2006 NONMINORITY $19,253.04 2005 NONMINORITY $34,471.15 2005 NONMINORITY $18,224.34 2006 NONMINORITY $80,155.70 2005 NONMINORITY $42,936.85 2005 NONMINORITY $5,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $407,668.23 2006 NONMINORITY $65,685.00 2004 NONMINORITY $9,766.66 2006 NONMINORITY $5,132.24 2006 NONMINORITY $65,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $1,567.00 2005 NONMINORITY $22,841.68 2004 NONMINORITY $35,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $40,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $17,764.00 2005 NONMINORITY $76,405.15 2004 NONMINORITY $29,374.10 2002 NONMINORITY $29,995.94 2006 NONMINORITY $29,988.45 2002 NONMINORITY $20,577.30 2005 NONMINORITY $63,836.46 2006 NONMINORITY $25,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $52,271.69 2004 NONMINORITY $38,400.92 2006 NONMINORITY $43,708.10 2005 NONMINORITY $146,762.48 2002 NONMINORITY $82,589.78 2005 NONMINORITY $234,378.50 2002 NONMINORITY $32,798.12 2005 NONMINORITY $8,870.40 2004 NONMINORITY $116,494.40 2004 NONMINORITY $60,549.50 2002 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-69 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H584701C H545501C H636601C H572201C H636601C H483102C H458401C H618301C H658401C H614901C H637001C H659301C H584501C H648201C H648801C H648801C H584501C H538101C H595504C H592401C H614101C H678001C H678001C H524101C H510401C H617801C H591501C H585101C H556601C H538101C H595508C H568603C H629501C H629501C H633401C H614601C H599901C H595506C H458201C H613901C H635301C H636701C H341401C SH28101C H578101C H525001C H466203C H466203C H525001C H584801C H568603C H528206C HX16101C H614801C SB36701C SB36701C H706001C SUB NAME UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $94,928.80 2004 NONMINORITY $71,523.50 2006 NONMINORITY $102,874.45 2006 NONMINORITY $50,378.00 2002 NONMINORITY $194,916.10 2006 NONMINORITY $102,650.00 2002 NONMINORITY $158,996.40 2006 NONMINORITY $28,707.70 2005 NONMINORITY $44,714.02 2006 NONMINORITY $69,669.34 2005 NONMINORITY $115,386.25 2007 NONMINORITY $107,446.16 2007 NONMINORITY $54,250.90 2005 NONMINORITY $829,962.20 2005 NONMINORITY $179,095.95 2005 NONMINORITY $69,941.60 2005 NONMINORITY $17,411.56 2005 NONMINORITY $61,055.40 2004 NONMINORITY $74,990.19 2007 NONMINORITY $25,895.69 2005 NONMINORITY $74,262.80 2005 NONMINORITY $55,991.84 2007 NONMINORITY $179,611.64 2007 NONMINORITY $146,372.06 2007 NONMINORITY $218,450.51 2005 NONMINORITY $83,527.50 2007 NONMINORITY $67,547.20 2004 NONMINORITY $72,433.00 2005 NONMINORITY $32,136.30 2005 NONMINORITY $165,162.25 2004 NONMINORITY $25,880.07 2005 NONMINORITY $213,511.00 2004 NONMINORITY $8,721.80 2005 NONMINORITY $65,145.25 2005 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $69,165.23 2005 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $61,703.55 2005 NONMINORITY $580,944.56 2005 NONMINORITY $153,471.00 2005 NONMINORITY $8,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $125,958.00 2007 NONMINORITY $194,995.07 2007 NONMINORITY $1,800.00 2007 NONMINORITY $49,659.30 2004 NONMINORITY $74,262.80 2005 NONMINORITY $141,236.10 2007 NONMINORITY $141,706.50 2007 NONMINORITY $11,922.15 2005 NONMINORITY $129,421.60 2007 NONMINORITY $142,793.50 2004 NONMINORITY $47,343.50 2006 NONMINORITY $3,950.85 2005 NONMINORITY $49,614.00 2005 NONMINORITY $2,270.40 2004 NONMINORITY $5,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $150,749.70 2007 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-70 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H706001C H614801C H581701C SB36401C H581701C SB36401C H576801C H574501C H578301C H626401C H626401C H664901C H664901C H613301C H576801C H681001C H591301C HX19201C H585701C H652701C H585701C HX17401C H591301C H615101C H683001C SS53401C H613301C H552301C H667001C H666601C H521001C H657701C H521001C H552301C H670201C H615101C H639201C H468101C H561401C H525201C H502801C H556101C H463901C H637103C H629401C H637103C H639201C H555901C H426101C H636501C H426101C H526601C H555701C H545501C H556301C H524501C H527801C SUB NAME UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $149,432.13 2007 NONMINORITY $53,745.40 2005 NONMINORITY $32,097.00 2005 NONMINORITY $45,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $40,454.50 2005 NONMINORITY $14,038.33 2004 NONMINORITY $47,310.42 2004 NONMINORITY $1,991.85 2005 NONMINORITY $158,245.12 2006 NONMINORITY $5,116.00 2004 NONMINORITY $19,985.10 2004 NONMINORITY $782,494.80 2006 NONMINORITY $352,173.00 2006 NONMINORITY $31,266.25 2005 NONMINORITY $374,004.88 2004 NONMINORITY $141,998.22 2007 NONMINORITY $91,581.40 2004 NONMINORITY $8,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $5,437.85 2005 NONMINORITY $36,450.50 2007 NONMINORITY $86,967.05 2005 NONMINORITY $76,726.25 2007 NONMINORITY $205,647.30 2004 NONMINORITY $84,576.65 2005 NONMINORITY $67,748.15 2007 NONMINORITY $71,386.50 2007 NONMINORITY $88,972.90 2005 NONMINORITY $5,144.40 2005 NONMINORITY $7,921.75 2007 NONMINORITY $45,900.00 2007 NONMINORITY $110,834.25 2005 NONMINORITY $48,972.20 2007 NONMINORITY $212,933.09 2005 NONMINORITY $42,592.40 2005 NONMINORITY $12,957.60 2007 NONMINORITY $17,767.65 2005 NONMINORITY $7,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $183,560.50 2003 NONMINORITY $51,802.30 2004 NONMINORITY $277,410.23 2002 NONMINORITY $51,218.00 2003 NONMINORITY $63,385.00 2003 NONMINORITY $78,408.00 2003 NONMINORITY $339,609.05 2004 NONMINORITY $11,934.00 2004 NONMINORITY $1,817,651.35 2004 NONMINORITY $34,025.40 2006 NONMINORITY $69,954.74 2002 NONMINORITY $4,532.00 2003 NONMINORITY $194,775.00 2006 NONMINORITY $32,298.12 2003 NONMINORITY $29,738.90 2002 NONMINORITY $20,105.00 2003 NONMINORITY $71,523.50 2006 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $97,408.00 2003 NONMINORITY $11,524.10 2002 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-71 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H528501C H591101C SH27801C H555601C H510601C H578201C H524401C H319003C H499102C H637102C H556001C H591101C H586401C SS49101C H528001C H589801C H576301C H528001C H502501C H556401C H557001C H552901C H541701C SH27301C SH27301C H556901C H589601C H541701C H548301C SB40701C H556301C H457303C H407601C H556201C H568604C H585001C H595502C H585601C H563001C H587601C H595501C H527201C H564201C H591601C H612201C H550601C H637101C H559701C H532001C H637101C H549401C H649301C H586001C H584301C H503703C H425601C H525501C SUB NAME UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $47,296.00 2002 NONMINORITY $65,343.65 2005 NONMINORITY $13,750.00 2004 NONMINORITY $30,055.35 2003 NONMINORITY $154,966.40 2006 NONMINORITY $391,184.09 2006 NONMINORITY $18,121.35 2003 NONMINORITY $213,876.74 2002 NONMINORITY $181,966.80 2003 NONMINORITY $1,365,235.15 2004 NONMINORITY $45,719.25 2003 NONMINORITY $33,455.30 2005 NONMINORITY $8,750.50 2002 NONMINORITY $5,673.00 2003 NONMINORITY $9,157.60 2003 NONMINORITY $65,036.25 2003 NONMINORITY $26,340.00 2003 NONMINORITY $5,866.27 2003 NONMINORITY $88,912.00 2002 NONMINORITY $38,544.00 2003 NONMINORITY $29,434.00 2003 NONMINORITY $14,988.39 2004 NONMINORITY $228,422.50 2003 NONMINORITY $14,038.33 2004 NONMINORITY $45,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $28,734.10 2003 NONMINORITY $49,141.91 2003 NONMINORITY $66,112.70 2003 NONMINORITY $12,889.00 2002 NONMINORITY $75,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $5,570.00 2004 NONMINORITY $107,658.70 2002 NONMINORITY $65,644.80 2004 NONMINORITY $67,969.15 2003 NONMINORITY $195,726.55 2005 NONMINORITY $37,297.50 2004 NONMINORITY $91,964.27 2003 NONMINORITY $49,575.00 2004 NONMINORITY $153,151.80 2003 NONMINORITY $9,614.30 2002 NONMINORITY $20,946.22 2003 NONMINORITY $10,464.00 2002 NONMINORITY $86,209.50 2003 NONMINORITY $48,587.27 2004 NONMINORITY $6,467.20 2003 NONMINORITY $5,540.82 2003 NONMINORITY $112,807.90 2003 NONMINORITY $46,999.00 2002 NONMINORITY $10,412.00 2002 NONMINORITY $1,087,759.00 2003 NONMINORITY $93,996.35 2004 NONMINORITY $69,401.64 2006 NONMINORITY $26,982.58 2004 NONMINORITY $12,752.45 2004 NONMINORITY $32,448.00 2004 NONMINORITY $54,830.47 2003 NONMINORITY $86,675.30 2002 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-72 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H591201C H563901C H610001C H591001C H527501C H560101C H458301C H576701C H458301C H527001C H524801C H534801C H526001C H586301C H497201C H615501C H556701C H534801C H497201C H615501C H560101C H532301C H524601C H543701C H451001C H460401C H436701C H585301C H532301C H527701C H646301C H559701C H646301C H614201C H591201C H416001C H313502C H561401C H637001C H532001C H543701C H626401C H573402C H237805C H606901C H524301C H563901C SL45001C H552301C SS49801C H614201C H664901C H483102C H589801C H629501C H614401C H499102C SUB NAME UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC URBAN ENGINEERING INC URBAN ENGINEERING INC URBAN ENGINEERING INC URBAN ENGINEERING INC URBAN ENGINEERING INC URBAN ENGINEERING INC URBAN ENGINEERING INC URBAN ENGINEERING INC URBAN ENGINEERING INC URBAN ENGINEERING INC URBAN ENGINEERING INC UTILITY CONSTRUCTION CO INC UTILITY CONSTRUCTION CO INC UTILITY CONSTRUCTION CO INC UTILITY CONSTRUCTION CO INC UTILITY CONSTRUCTION CO INC UTILITY CONSTRUCTION CO INC VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $197,057.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $110,210.86 2003 NONMINORITY C $100,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $529,680.28 2003 NONMINORITY C $94,300.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $16,151.60 2004 NONMINORITY C $23,230.46 2003 NONMINORITY C $11,300.88 2005 NONMINORITY C $97,800.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $55,987.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $115,523.25 2002 NONMINORITY C $44,421.94 2003 NONMINORITY C $4,023.65 2002 NONMINORITY C $35,904.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $47,996.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $112,298.43 2006 NONMINORITY C $20,411.29 2003 NONMINORITY C $51,408.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $216,508.65 2003 NONMINORITY C $98,978.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $39,994.80 2004 NONMINORITY C $14,948.20 2003 NONMINORITY C $98,999.95 2003 NONMINORITY C $8,985.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $15,383.10 2004 NONMINORITY C $34,391.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $45,164.70 2004 NONMINORITY C $1,598.50 2004 NONMINORITY C $29,675.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $28,270.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $115,559.90 2004 NONMINORITY C $24,725.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $32,449.60 2004 NONMINORITY C $29,989.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $100,436.50 2005 NONMINORITY C $319,251.59 2003 NONMINORITY C $2,450.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $3,500.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $33,480.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $4,460.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $46,000.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $7,065.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $4,100.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $2,500.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $3,110.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $6,650.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $55,570.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $128,503.50 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $69,022.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $21,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $42,575.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $686,958.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $116,925.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $7,500.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $6,900.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $9,400.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN C $17,000.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-73 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H556701C H458301C H557101C H593301C H434501C H584901C H585301C H524501C HX16101C H606501C SH27301C H585701C H635301C HX17401C H613901C SS55901C H585001C H584301C H586301C H586201C H648201C SS42101C H610301C H555601C H524101C H586001C HX19201C H589201C H569601C H587601C H527501C H526501C H636001C SS43601C H584601C H636501C H658401C H527201C H636301C H635901C H525201C H636301C H355201C H583901C H527701C H637102C H636101C H527801C H635401C H615301C H535501C SB36401C H683001C H589901C H648601C H490801C H555801C SUB NAME VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $4,750.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $13,800.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $15,400.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $3,400.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $27,000.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $8,800.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $9,500.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $27,000.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $6,700.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $3,650.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $11,000.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $11,900.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $17,600.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $19,000.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $30,000.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $17,000.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $22,000.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $3,200.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $6,500.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $5,600.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $14,450.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $6,700.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $4,900.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $3,900.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $16,545.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $5,500.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $17,600.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $25,000.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $6,200.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $4,600.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $20,500.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $1,700.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $29,500.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $12,000.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $8,500.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $35,500.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $13,500.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $6,900.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $7,300.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $7,800.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $25,000.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $7,300.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $12,500.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $6,000.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $3,800.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $26,000.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $11,000.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $2,400.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $9,200.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $6,000.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $6,600.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $11,000.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $27,000.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $6,700.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $4,900.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $10,500.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $7,500.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-74 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H557201C H526001C H527901C H591201C H458101C H614901C H549401C H568603C H516301C H527301C H423901C H577901C H567601C H637001C H561801C H614901C H554401C H497201C H457303C H591201C H511801C H595508C H637001C H341401C H549401C H636601C H555901C H556601C H410401C H649301C H483102C SB36401C H526401C H576801C SH27301C H581701C H541701C H611501C H664901C H591101C H583701C SS53401C H681601C H681601C H510601C H643401C H595506C H584501C SL46601C H591301C H529901C H613701C H458201C H526701C H423901C H525601C H303802C SUB NAME VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALLEY RAIN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION VALLEYWIDE FENCE CO VALLEYWIDE FENCE CO VALLEYWIDE FENCE CO VALLEYWIDE FENCE CO VALLEYWIDE FENCE CO VAN WAGENEN SURVEYING VAN WAGENEN SURVEYING VAN WAGENEN SURVEYING VAN WAGENEN SURVEYING VASTCO INC VASTCO INC VASTCO INC VASTCO INC VASTCO INC VASTCO INC VASTCO INC VASTCO INC VASTCO INC VASTCO INC VASTCO INC VASTCO INC VASTCO INC VASTCO INC VERSATECH CONSULTING INTERNATIONAL CORP VILLA INC VILLA INC W S P INC W S P INC W S P INC W S P INC W S P INC W S P INC W S P INC W S P INC W S P INC W S P INC W W ASPHALT WADE JOHNSON TRUCKING WAGON WHEEL TRUCKING WANNA BEE TRUCKING WARNERS NURSERY & LANDSCAPE CO WATER MOVERS INC WATER TRUCK WATER TRUCK WEATHERGUARD METAL CONSTRUCTION INC WEBER GROUP LC WEBER GROUP LC WEST POINT CONTRACTORS INC WEST POINT CONTRACTORS INC WESTERMOOR ELECTRIC INC WESTERN EMULSIONS INC WESTERN EMULSIONS INC WESTERN EMULSIONS INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $10,900.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $4,700.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $12,600.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $106,400.00 2005 NONMINORITY $45,452.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN $47,615.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN $144,593.43 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN $135,666.32 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN $107,221.45 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN $13,400.00 2004 NONMINORITY $13,378.50 2005 NONMINORITY $13,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY $13,400.00 2004 NONMINORITY $206,222.00 2007 NONMINORITY $140,756.00 2005 NONMINORITY $423,304.00 2005 NONMINORITY $1,856,053.00 2006 NONMINORITY $641,218.00 2003 NONMINORITY $1,886,519.33 2002 NONMINORITY $696,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $566,755.00 2005 NONMINORITY $1,040,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $9,234.67 2007 NONMINORITY $3,026,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $388,526.80 2004 NONMINORITY $330,937.00 2006 NONMINORITY $54,966.00 2002 NONMINORITY $19,950.00 2005 NONMINORITY $440,293.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $152,263.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $23,500.00 2002 NONMINORITY $10,625.00 2004 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $43,750.00 2004 NONMINORITY $10,625.00 2004 NONMINORITY $67,665.20 2005 NONMINORITY $25,761.60 2003 NONMINORITY $109,171.00 2004 NONMINORITY $50,485.00 2006 NONMINORITY $17,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $23,887.00 2005 NONMINORITY $16,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $9,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY $9,600.00 2007 NONMINORITY $510,851.40 2006 NONMINORITY $19,260.00 2007 NONMINORITY $60,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $10,500.00 2005 NONMINORITY $3,498.00 2003 NONMINORITY $17,520.00 2004 NONMINORITY $5,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $24,170.00 2006 NONMINORITY $62,372.00 2005 NONMINORITY $27,200.00 2005 NONMINORITY $5,954.00 2005 NONMINORITY $8,800.00 2002 NONMINORITY $6,360.00 2002 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-75 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H635401C H615501C H610401C H584901C H460401C H681601C H664901C H625901C H556301C H636001C H453501C H610001C H585701C H681001C H528206C SUB NAME WESTERN EMULSIONS INC WESTERN EMULSIONS INC WESTERN EMULSIONS INC WESTERN EMULSIONS INC WESTERN GRADE LLC WESTERN GRADE LLC WESTERN SUNSETS DEMOLITION INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY $4,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY $9,600.00 2006 NONMINORITY $13,200.00 2003 NONMINORITY $7,290.00 2004 NONMINORITY $59,508.00 2003 NONMINORITY $28,800.00 2007 NONMINORITY $140,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $91,550.00 2004 NONMINORITY $13,555.00 2004 NONMINORITY $24,717.00 2006 NONMINORITY $12,174.00 2003 NONMINORITY $501,512.00 2003 NONMINORITY $14,522.00 2005 NONMINORITY $18,680.00 2007 NONMINORITY $26,505.00 2006 NONMINORITY BUSINESS CATEGORY C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-76 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # H633401C H466501C HX16101C H599901C H614801C SB40701C H655601C SB36401C H595503C H576701C SH27301C H584501C H643401C H618301C H613701C H552301C H510401C H510601C H605101C H490801C H637001C H602701C H614101C H451001C H466203C H341401C H635701C H458201C H525001C H636701C H591201C H560101C H658401C H458101C H593301C H622201C H390201C H635701C H657701C H636701C H633201C HX17401C H681001C H649301C H683001C H463201C H463501C H463801C H510601C H510601C H563001C H613301C H569001C H605201C H616901C SUB NAME WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN WASATCH CONCRETE PUMPING INC WESTERN WASATCH CONCRETE PUMPING INC WESTMOOR ELECTRIC INC WESTMOOR ELECTRIC INC WESTMOOR ELECTRIC INC WICKENBURG ASPHALT & PAVING CO WILLIAM R ALLEN TRUCKING WILLIAM R ALLEN TRUCKING WINDSWEPT ORGANIX INC WINDSWEPT ORGANIX INC WINDSWEPT ORGANIX INC WINDSWEPT ORGANIX INC WINDSWEPT ORGANIX INC WINDSWEPT ORGANIX INC WOLFSKILL GRADING SERVICE LLC WOODYS LANDSCAPING LLC WOODYS LANDSCAPING LLC WOODYS LANDSCAPING LLC WRIGHT CONCRETE PUMPING X-PRESS TRUX INC YELLOWKNIFE BUILDING SYSTEMS INC YORK TRUCKING LLC YOST & GARDNER ENGINEERS YOST & GARDNER ENGINEERS YOST & GARDNER ENGINEERS SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $6,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $49,005.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $918.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $6,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $50,310.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $2,550.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $8,440.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $12,933.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $85,407.50 2004 NONMINORITY C $21,660.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $12,933.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $39,835.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $450,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $13,115.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $7,470.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $13,030.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $69,161.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $188,665.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $35,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $12,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY C $71,915.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $33,260.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $26,050.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $5,776.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $381,090.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $322,800.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $81,075.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $84,621.50 2005 NONMINORITY C $26,050.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $28,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $90,276.46 2005 NONMINORITY C $13,200.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $113,225.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $502,712.50 2002 NONMINORITY C $82,435.00 2004 NONMINORITY C $18,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $12,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $19,200.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $21,260.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $128,916.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $17,420.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $43,581.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $58,150.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $12,267.40 2006 NONMINORITY C $3,750.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $177,069.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $36,751.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $177,069.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $640.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $19,800.00 2006 NONMINORITY C $110,225.00 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN C $23,400.00 2005 NONMINORITY C $8,500.00 2003 NONMINORITY C $18,300.00 2007 NONMINORITY C $18,300.00 2007 NONMINORITY C FUNDING SOURCE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL Page A-77 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # 05321 05045 02006 01135 060081 020751 02043 05010 01083 02032 02007 03021 05063 02051 04-058 06028 01106 02016 03020 02012 04058 02081 01082 020752 02002 03049 01133 06052 060082 040421 03-046.1 03059 030461 02029 07013 03033 02017 05046 04073 06013 060031 01086 01129 060083 04018 05033 PRIME NAME A M E C EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL INC A TEAM PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATES INC A TEAM PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATES INC AANJI CONSULTING LLC ABSOLUTE SURVEYING & MAPPING INC ABSOLUTE SURVEYING & MAPPING INC ACQUISITION SCIENCES LTD AERIAL MAPPING CO AERIAL MAPPING CO AERIAL MAPPING CO ALPHA ENGINEERING INC AMEC EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL INC AMEC EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL INC AMEC EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL INC AMEC INFRASTRUCTURE AMEC INFRASTRUCTURE INC AMEC INFRASTRUCTURE INC AMEC INFRASTRUCTURE INC AMEC INFRASTRUCTURE INC AMEC INFRASTRUCTURE INC AMEC INFRASTRUCTURE INC AMEC INFRASTRUCTURE INC AMEC INFRASTRUCTURE INC AMEC INFRASTRUCTURE INC AMEC INFRASTRUCTURE INC AMEC INFRASTRUCTURE INC AMEC INFRASTRUCTURE INC AMEC INFRASTRUCTURE INC AMEC INFRASTRUCTURE INC AMEC INFRASTRUCTURE INC AZTEC ENGINEERING AZTEC ENGINEERING AZTEC ENGINEERING AZTEC ENGINEERING AZTEC ENGINEERING AZTEC ENGINEERING AZTEC ENGINEERING AZTEC ENGINEERING AZTEC ENGINEERING AZTEC ENGINEERING AZTEC ENGINEERING AZTEC ENGINEERING AZTEC ENGINEERING AZTEC ENGINEERING AZTEC ENGINEERING AZTEC ENGINEERING AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY $750,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $33,334.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $50,000.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $100,000.00 2002 NATIVE AMERICAN $20,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $247,950.00 2003 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $7,500.00 2002 NONMINORITY $38,405.00 2002 NONMINORITY $150,000.00 2002 ASIAN AMERICAN $250,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $34,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $33,333.00 2002 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $718,666.00 2007 NONMINORITY $299,975.00 2002 NONMINORITY $200,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $406,071.00 2004 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $832,293.00 2003 NONMINORITY $1,233,559.00 2002 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $1,500,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $1,000,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $1,370,495.00 2002 NONMINORITY $6,059,248.00 2007 NONMINORITY $40,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $1,000,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $75,000.00 2003 ASIAN AMERICAN $525,273.00 2004 ASIAN AMERICAN $75,000.00 2004 ASIAN AMERICAN $3,850,000.00 2003 ASIAN AMERICAN $9,743,491.00 2007 ASIAN AMERICAN $100,000.00 2004 ASIAN AMERICAN $200,000.00 2002 ASIAN AMERICAN $33,333.00 2006 ASIAN AMERICAN $200,000.00 2005 ASIAN AMERICAN $4,077,270.00 2006 ASIAN AMERICAN $100,000.00 2006 ASIAN AMERICAN $291,042.00 2002 ASIAN AMERICAN $2,879,000.00 2002 ASIAN AMERICAN $40,000.00 2007 ASIAN AMERICAN $100,000.00 2004 ASIAN AMERICAN $1,753,000.00 2005 ASIAN AMERICAN PRIME COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ NAVAJO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE Page A-78 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # 5033 05052 02003 04079 T0213A0111 01062 06019 02033 03018 03-043 04070 05039 05037 05053 03043 060084 020753 04062 040422 020754 02044 03050 01093 06-051 06051 T0249A0006 03034 T0211A0048 06006 02066 04027 06033 01114 020871 03001 05023 02090 0604002 05060 05050 060401 060151 02068 06001 05047 01108 PRIME NAME AZTEC ENGINEERING AZTEC ENGINEERING BASEPLANS U S A BASEPLANS U S A BERNARD DEUTSCH ASSOC BJ COMMUNICATIONS INC BURGESS & NIPLE INC BURGESS & NIPLE INC C H 2 M HILL CARTER & BURGESS CARTER & BURGESS INC CARTER & BURGESS INC CARTER & BURGESS INC CARTER & BURGESS INC CARTER & BURGESS INC CASTRO ENGINEERING CORP CASTRO ENGINEERING CORP CEI CONSULTANT ENGINEERING INC CEI CONSULTANT ENGINEERING INC CEI CONSULTANT ENGINEERING INC CEI CONSULTANT ENGINEERING INC CEI CONSULTANT ENGINEERING INC CH2M HILL CHALMERS ENGINEERING CHALMERS ENGINEERING SERVICES INC CHALMERS ENGINEERING SVCS INC CK ENGINEERING INC CKC CONSTR CO CORRAL DYBAS GROUP INC CORRAL DYBAS GROUP INC CORRAL DYBAS GROUP INC CORRAL DYBAS GROUP INC D L R PROPERTY PROJECT MANAGEMENT LLC DAHL ROBINS & ASSOCIATES INC DANELOWITZ & ASSOC INC DANELOWITZ & ASSOC INC DANELOWITZ & ASSOC INC DANELOWITZ & ASSOC INC DANELOWITZ & ASSOC INC DANELOWITZ & ASSOC INC DANELOWITZ & ASSOC INC DANELOWITZ & ASSOC INC DANELOWITZ & ASSOC INC DANELOWITZ & ASSOC INC DANELOWITZ & ASSOC INC DANELOWITZ & ASSOC INC AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY $1,753,000.00 2005 ASIAN AMERICAN $177,777.00 2006 ASIAN AMERICAN $66,667.00 2002 NONMINORITY $200,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $134,098.23 2002 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $25,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $249,814.00 2002 NONMINORITY $336,242.00 2004 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $515,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $177,777.00 2006 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $40,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $74,999.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $1,000,000.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $100,000.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $200,000.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $1,000,000.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $1,123,779.00 2002 NONMINORITY $30,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $30,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $693,049.28 2003 NONMINORITY $250,000.00 2003 AFRICAN AMERICAN $282,435.02 2003 NONMINORITY $555,663.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $324,717.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $210,020.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $369,640.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $50,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $628,453.00 2004 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $50,000.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $50,000.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN $50,000.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $50,000.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $50,000.00 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN $50,000.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $50,000.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $100,000.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $100,000.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN $33,333.00 2007 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN PRIME COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ GRAHAM, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE Page A-79 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # 06-040.2 3001 2090 T0213A0116 T0313A0068 04002 04020 01112 06042 04-002 2045 12/1/2004 020755 04084 04034 04021 02097 04064 06054 04048 03022 04008 03-031 07001 03035 02009 02035 060032 0404236 04021 03051 05051 00075 02048 03031 04003 01131 05026 03003 03032 01087 03008 04049 07008 04046 02064 PRIME NAME DANELOWITZ & ASSOCIATES DANELOWITZ ASSOCIATES DANELOWITZ ASSOCIATES DESIGN ONE INC DEUTSCH ASSOC DIBBLE & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING INC DIBBLE & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING INC DIBBLE & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING INC DIBBLE & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERING INC DIBBLE & ASSOCIATES INC DLR PROPERTY PROJECT MGMT DLR PROPERTY/PROJECT MANAGEMENT LLC DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS DMJM HARRIS EARTH TECH INC EARTH TECH INC ECOPLAN ASSOCIATES INC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING INC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING INC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING INC AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY $50,000.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN $100,000.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $50,000.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN $356,413.55 2002 ASIAN AMERICAN $126,725.40 2003 NONMINORITY $354,141.00 2005 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $536,565.00 2002 NONMINORITY $509,044.00 2007 NONMINORITY $354,141.00 2004 NONMINORITY $236,384.00 2003 NONMINORITY $75,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $1,017,543.00 2005 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $1,849,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $448,746.00 2005 NONMINORITY $60,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $1,189,638.00 2005 NONMINORITY $250,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $1,046,614.00 2005 NONMINORITY $190,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $1,943,806.00 2007 NONMINORITY $250,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $542,149.00 2002 NONMINORITY $1,455,800.00 2003 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $1,000,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $1,000,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $1,381,794.00 2006 NONMINORITY $3,599,928.00 2002 NONMINORITY $880,443.00 2002 NONMINORITY $160,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $234,782.00 2005 NONMINORITY $1,685,464.00 2002 NONMINORITY $666,666.00 2005 NONMINORITY $940,596.00 2004 NONMINORITY $1,480,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $3,395,126.00 2002 NONMINORITY $3,525,412.00 2003 NONMINORITY $300,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $1,425,829.00 2007 NONMINORITY $224,726.00 2004 NONMINORITY $339,522.00 2003 NONMINORITY PRIME COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE Page A-80 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # 02028 02-041.4 01105 02013 04019 020756 6085 06055 060085 05054 05024 02100 2100 05074 02077 2077 2078 02061 6086 020757 060086 01063 03015 01117 03052 040424 1134 3009 03-046.2 01050 06017 060033 01076 03009 030462 02096 010134 05027 04001 04059 060087 020758 060088 02080 02095 02049 PRIME NAME ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING INC ENTRANCO ENTRANCO ENGINEERS INC ENTRANCO ENGINEERS INC ENTRANCO ENGINEERS INC ENTRANCO ENGINEERS INC EPS GROUP INC EPS GROUP INC ENG PLINR'S & SRVYR'S EPS GROUP INC ENGS PLNRS SRVYRS EPS GRUP INC ENG PLNRS SRVYRS EXPERT RIGHT OF WAY CONSULTING SVCS LLC FORNEY TECHNICAL & SURVEYING SERVICES LLC FORNEY TECHNICAL SURVEYING LLC FROG CREEK INC FROG CREEK INC FROG CREEK INC FROG CREEK INC FUGRO CONSULTANTS INC G M T S CORP GMTS CORP GMTS CORPORATION GODEC RANDALL & ASSOC INC GORDLEY DESIGN GROUP HDR CONSTRUCTION CONTROL CORP HDR CONSTRUCTION CONTROL CORP HDR CONSTRUCTION CONTROL CORP HDR ENGINEERING HDR ENGINEERING HDR ENGINEERING HDR ENGINEERING INC HDR ENGINEERING INC HDR ENGINEERING INC HDR ENGINEERING INC HDR ENGINEERING INC HDR ENGINEERING INC HDR ENGINEERING INC HDR ENGINEERING INC HDR ENGINEERING INC HDR ENGINEERING INC HDR ENGINEERING INC HORIZON SURVEYING HUBBARD ENGINEERING HUBBARD ENGINEERING HUITT ZOLLARS INC HUITT ZOLLARS INC HUITTZOLLARS INC AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY PRIME COUNTY_ST $1,550,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $180,796.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $489,645.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $50,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $50,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $40,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $447,420.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $40,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $177,777.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $60,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $60,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $140,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $135,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $135,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $135,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $50,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $40,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $40,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $50,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN PIMA, AZ $157,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,000,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,000,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $813,980.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $2,898,341.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $75,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $5,951,546.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,244,370.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,575,013.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $2,898,341.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $75,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,455,322.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $813,980.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $666,666.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $241,471.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,000,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $40,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $40,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,083,167.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $299,675.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $528,134.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE Page A-81 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # 04078 02008 04047 05038 05076 6014 02083 01077 01092 06039 04068 06014 02021 04012 05055 03005 04023 05013 05040 02040 01121 030111 060071 02101 3111 2101 060381 3111 05009 04024 07101 02024 04067 060431 04074 04009 01127 05029 02018 05031 020872 06056 5056 T0348A0030 07-010 04075 PRIME NAME INLINER AMERICA INC INLINER AMERICAN INC J2 ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN J2 ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN JACOB CIVIL INC JACOBS CIVIL JACOBS CIVIL INC JACOBS CIVIL INC JACOBS CIVIL INC JACOBS CIVIL INC JACOBS CIVIL INC JACOBS CIVIL INC JACOBS CIVIL INC JACOBS CIVIL INC JACOBS CIVIL INC JACOBS CIVIL INC JACOBS CIVIL INC JACOBS CIVIL INC JEFFERS & ASSOCIATES PLLC JEFFERS & ASSOCIATES PLLC JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES JOSHUA LAND SURVEYING INC JOSHUA LAND SURVEYING INC JOSHUA LAND SURVEYING INC JOSHUA LAND SURVEYING INC JOSHUA LAND SURVEYING INC JOSHUA LAND SURVEYING INC JOSHUA LAND SURVEYING INC KENNEY AERIAL MAPPING INC KIMLEY HORN & ASSOC INC KIMLEY HORN & ASSOC INC KIMLEY HORN & ASSOC INC KIMLEY HORN & ASSOC INC KIMLEY HORN & ASSOC INC KIMLEY HORN & ASSOC INC KIMLEY HORN & ASSOC INC KIMLEY HORN & ASSOC INC KIMLEY HORN & ASSOC INC KIMLEY HORN & ASSOC INC KIMLEY HORN & ASSOC INC KIMLEY HORN & ASSOC INC KIMLEY HORN & ASSOC INC KIMLEY HORN ASSOCIATES KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOC INC KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC KIRKHAM MICHAEL & ASSOC INC AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY $200,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $66,666.00 2002 NONMINORITY $172,530.00 2004 NATIVE AMERICAN $721,010.00 2005 NATIVE AMERICAN $1,014,522.00 2007 NONMINORITY $1,154,932.00 2006 NONMINORITY $654,824.00 2003 NONMINORITY $1,198,979.00 2002 NONMINORITY $1,000,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $1,931,862.00 2007 NONMINORITY $241,165.00 2007 NONMINORITY $1,154,932.00 2007 NONMINORITY $200,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $363,051.00 2005 NONMINORITY $177,777.00 2006 NONMINORITY $1,168,859.00 2004 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $135,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $31,250.00 2003 NONMINORITY $62,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY $36,212.00 2003 NONMINORITY $31,250.00 2003 NONMINORITY $36,212.00 2002 NONMINORITY $25,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $31,250.00 2003 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $760,693.00 2007 NONMINORITY $598,117.00 2004 NONMINORITY $895,186.00 2006 NONMINORITY $1,888,458.00 2007 NONMINORITY $200,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $35,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $923,735.00 2005 NONMINORITY $200,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $497,736.00 2006 NONMINORITY $721,042.00 2003 NONMINORITY $177,777.00 2006 NONMINORITY $177,777.00 2005 NONMINORITY $1,525,876.30 2003 NONMINORITY $760,693.00 2007 NONMINORITY $200,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY PRIME COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE Page A-82 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # 02094 02092 03023 03039 060072 02102 2102 06-046 03036 06046 020759 5039 06034 05014 01122 06004 060114 05039 01079 05064 05061 02052 02063 04-036 04052 05019 04036 02031 04077 020417 01090 04025 02098 020873 3010 05035 03025 05065 07009 03010 4072 04085 04072 03012 02069 060382 PRIME NAME KIRKHAM MICHAEL & ASSOC INC KITTELSON & ASSOC INC KLEINFELDER INC KRISTIN DARR & ASSOCIATES INC LAING & ASSOCIATES LLC LAING & ASSOCIATES LLC LAING ASSOCIATES LEE ENGINEERING LEE ENGINEERING LLC LEE ENGINEERING LLC LOCATION LAND SURVEYING INC LOGAN SIMPSON DESIGN LOGAN SIMPSON DESIGN INC LOGAN SIMPSON DESIGN INC LOGAN SIMPSON DESIGN INC LOGAN SIMPSON DESIGN INC LOGAN SIMPSON DESIGN INC LOGAN SIMPSON DESIGN INC MACTEC ENGINEERING & CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING & CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING & CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING & CONSULTING INC MACTEC ENGINEERING & CONSULTING INC MICHAEL BAKER JR INC MICHAEL BAKER JR INC MICHAEL BAKER JR INC MICHAEL BAKER JR INC MICHAEL BAKER JR INC MICHAEL BAKER JR INC MICHAEL BAKER JR INC MICHAEL BAKER JR INC MICHAEL BAKER JR INC MICHAEL BAKER JR INC MICHAEL BAKER JR INC N J W WNTERPRISES NFRA INC NINYO & MOORE NINYO & MOORE NJW ENTEPRISES LLC NJW ENTERPRISES LLC NOISE AND AIR SOLUTIONS NOISE AND AIR SOLUTIONS INC NOISE AND AIR SOLUTIONS INC NORTHLAND RESEARCH INC NORTHLAND RESEARCH INC OCI ONEFORCE CONSULTANTS INC AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY PRIME COUNTY_ST $211,913.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $421,608.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $250,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $750,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $62,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $55,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $55,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $60,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $250,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $60,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $239,732.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $572,282.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $522,240.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $31,939.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $239,732.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $500,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $34,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $33,333.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $50,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $898,131.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $50,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $38,405.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $200,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $13,794.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $2,798,465.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $50,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $3,204,469.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $465,951.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $999,794.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $250,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $33,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $125,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $75,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $50,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $75,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $1,000,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $25,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE Page A-83 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # 06005 02046 5042 05042 060089 01104 6073 04-013 6009 04013 030113 060073 06009 02084 060383 02019 02027 03045 06037 05036 05057 01125 04076 05078 02026 01128 02015 02060 02082 01088 06002 020874 04032 020418 03053 02001 040425 07007 05028 04083 T0320A0001 01111 02065 03054 05322 02053 PRIME NAME OLSSON ASSOCIATES OR COLAN ASSOCIATES INC OSPREY OSPREY CONSULTING LLC OTAK INC PBS&J PARAGON SURVEYING PARAGON SURVEYING PARAGON SURVEYING PARAGON SURVEYING & RIGHT OF WAY SERVICE PARAGON SURVEYING & RIGHT OF WAY SERVICE PARAGON SURVEYING & RIGHT OF WAY SERVICE PARAGON SURVEYING & RIGHT OF WAY SERVICE PARAGON SURVEYING & RIGHT OF WAY SERVICE PARAGON SURVEYING & RIGHT OF WAY SERVICE PARSONS CORP PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC PB AMERICAS PB AMERICAS PB AMERICAS PB AMERICAS PB AMERICAS PB AMERICAS PB AMERICAS PB AMERICAS PB AMERICAS PB AMERICAS PB AMERICAS PB AMERICAS PB AMERICAS PB AMERICAS PB AMERICAS PB AMERICAS PB AMERICAS PHX HWY PRODUCTS INC PREMIER ENGINEERING CORP PREMIER ENGINEERING CORP QUALITY TESTING LLC QUALITY TESTING LLC QUALITY TESTING LLC AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY PRIME COUNTY_ST $225,068.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $7,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $75,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $75,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $40,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $62,500.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $50,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $31,250.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $62,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $50,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $80,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $25,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $200,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $716,468.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,009,705.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $4,769,410.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $959,034.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $177,777.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $155,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $3,851,849.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $177,777.00 2007 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $572,649.00 2003 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $35,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $2,130,308.00 2002 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $5,500,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $618,890.00 2004 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $2,311,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $2,360,853.00 2007 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $1,470,081.00 2004 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $3,199,722.00 2005 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $199,496.00 2003 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $1,000,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $503,365.00 2002 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $1,000,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $928,835.00 2007 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $666,666.00 2005 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $200,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $86,377.33 2003 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $20,337.00 2002 ASIAN AMERICAN MARICOPA, AZ $392,559.00 2003 ASIAN AMERICAN MARICOPA, AZ $1,000,000.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN MARICOPA, AZ $750,000.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN MARICOPA, AZ $33,333.00 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE Page A-84 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # 05066 0600810 60810 60811 0207511 01046 0600811 02005 03026 T0221A0056 06053 05067 03027 02054 6030 2039 04015 05033 05075 02034 07004 05079 04045 05003 06030 06036 06012 05034 06045 0600812 01126 02039 0207512 02020 06030 060432 02062 05020 04080 05015 02004 04069 02055 05068 03028 05322 PRIME NAME QUALITY TESTING LLC R B F CONSULTING R B F CONSULTING RITOCH POWELL RITOCH POWELL & ASSOCIATES RITOCH POWELL AND ASSOCIATES RITOCHPOWELL & ASSOCIATES S W C A INC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS SAGUARO GEOSERVICES INC SKYLINE BUILDERS & RESTORATION INC SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SPEEDIE & ASSOCIATES INC SPEEDIE & ASSOCIATES INC SPEEDIE AND ASSOCIATES STANLEY CONSULTANTS STANLEY CONSULTANTS STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STATISTICAL RESEARCH INC STEWART GEO TECHNOLOGIES INC T B E GROUP INC T B E GROUP INC TBE GROUP INC TECH AID CRYSTAL INC DBA TAC WIDWD CO TERRACON CONSULTANTS INC TERRACON CONSULTANTS INC TERRACON CONSULTANTS INC TERRACON CONSULTANTS INC AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY PRIME COUNTY_ST $33,000.00 2007 HISPANIC AMERICAN MARICOPA, AZ $40,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $40,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $40,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $40,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $484,287.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $250,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $40,289.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $60,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $33,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $250,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $33,333.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $999,949.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $649,233.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $7,799,950.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,002,465.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $2,545,553.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,418,051.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $177,777.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $5,172,961.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $999,949.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $5,182,540.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $3,439,725.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,782,577.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $60,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $40,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $35,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $649,233.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $200,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $999,949.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,000,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $199,563.00 2002 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $50,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $200,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $90,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $66,667.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $100,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $33,333.00 2002 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $33,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $250,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $750,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE Page A-85 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # 0207513 5015 0207514 02047 03057 03037 05030 2103 06-041 06-040.4 2073 2071 07022 07023 04-040 07021 04-005 04-011 6018 04-004 04-035 5016 04038 5048 5041 05041 06018 06041 04-043 04035 06-035 04-038 05016 04040 02058 02037 03044 02073 02010 04006 05048 0604004 02038 04057 05049 04043 PRIME NAME TETRA TECH INC THE TBE GROUP TIERRA RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES LTD TIERRA RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES LTD TRANSCORE ITS INC TRANSCORE ITS INC TRANSCORE ITS INC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY $100,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $90,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $641,978.00 2003 NONMINORITY $29,979.00 2004 NONMINORITY $250,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $184,526.00 2006 NONMINORITY $60,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $60,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $142,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $142,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $103,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $142,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $125,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $120,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $130,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $135,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $135,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $125,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $138,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $130,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $120,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $103,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $60,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY PRIME COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE Page A-86 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # 05017 04005 02071 04030 2071 0604004 01113 06035 05069 02103 04004 05022 02072 04010 04011 05070 02011 06048 03055 020419 02085 06044 06010 05077 06016 0207515 01130 01060 0600813 05080 03056 03004 03002 02050 02014 03019 06032 03038 06047 T0413A0115 02067 07011 T0348A0008 PRIME NAME TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATION TRISTAR ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT INC U R S CORP U R S CORP U R S CORP U R S CORP U R S CORP U R S CORP U R S CORP U R S CORP U R S CORP U R S CORP U R S CORP U R S CORP U R S CORP U R S CORP U R S CORP U R S CORP U R S CORP U R S CORP UNITED CIVIL GROUP CORP UNITED CIVIL GROUP CORP VISUS ENGINEERING CONSTR WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY $120,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $120,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $138.00 2006 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $60,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $130,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $120,000.00 2006 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $932,477.00 2007 NONMINORITY $1,000,000.00 2004 HISPANIC AMERICAN $200,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $1,987,183.00 2003 NONMINORITY $3,597,589.00 2007 NONMINORITY $495,743.00 2007 NONMINORITY $580,635.00 2006 NONMINORITY $591,534.00 2006 NONMINORITY $100,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY $1,775,639.00 2002 NONMINORITY $2,109,455.00 2002 NONMINORITY $40,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $177,777.00 2007 NONMINORITY $1,000,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $950,603.00 2004 NONMINORITY $575,879.00 2004 NONMINORITY $2,239,997.00 2003 NONMINORITY $50,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY $1,565,496.00 2004 NONMINORITY $564,834.00 2007 NONMINORITY $250,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY $60,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $552,071.83 2005 NONMINORITY $33,333.00 2002 NONMINORITY $150,000.00 2007 NONMINORITY $137,008.69 2003 NONMINORITY PRIME COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE AE Page A-87 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # 6014 6030 6030 6014 3009 3009 6014 3009 6014 6030 6030 3009 6014 6030 6030 6014 3009 SUB NAME ALPHA ENGINEERING INC AMEC EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL INC AMEC EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL INC AMEC EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL INC ATL INC AZTEC ENGINEERING COOPER AERIAL SURVEYS CO CORRAL DYBAS CORRAL DYBAS GROUP INC ECOPLAN ECOPLAN ASSOCIATES INC J 2 ENGINEERING J 2 ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN LOGAN SIMPSON DESIGN LOGAN SIMPSON DESIGN INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC TY LIN INTERNATIONAL SUB AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR SUB_ETHNICITY BUSINESS CATEGORY $147,164.00 2006 ASIAN AMERICAN AE $58,241.00 2007 NONMINORITY AE $58,241.00 2007 NONMINORITY AE $84,001.00 2006 NONMINORITY AE $232,223.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN AE $384,279.00 2003 ASIAN AMERICAN AE $26,813.00 2006 NONMINORITY AE $50,511.00 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN AE $55,182.00 2006 HISPANIC AMERICAN AE $365,969.00 2007 NONMINORITY AE $365,969.00 2007 NONMINORITY AE $145,622.00 2003 NATIVE AMERICAN AE $24,788.00 2006 NATIVE AMERICAN AE $37,057.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMENAE $37,057.00 2007 NONMINORITY WOMENAE $230,227.00 2006 NONMINORITY AE $203,638.00 2003 NONMINORITY AE Page A-88 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # T0248T0012 T0448A0044 T0749A0033 T0658B0006 T0758A0001 T0449C0001 T0159H0123 T0448B0044 T0740A0196 T0759A0054 T0158J0010 T0511A0052 T0611A0011 T0759A0002 T0248R0012 T0349A0020 T0648A0058 T0348B0024 T0159G0123 T0802A0004 T0349F0034 T0158S0010 T0149K0016 T0258A0027 T0549A0002 T0158T0010 T0549A0036 T0248A0001 T0358A0005 T0248U0012 T0358B0005 T0558A0001 T0549A0009 T0549A0008 T0448A0002 T0249A0003 T0158BE010 T0158V0010 T0521A0023 T0248H0012 T0613D0007 T0613C0007 T0613B0007 T0203A0020 T0449H0001 T0248E0012 T0448C0044 T0311A0048 T0343A0024 T0343A0033 T0420A0007 T0658A0018 T0558A0020 T0749A0030 T0248F0012 T0248J0012 T0758A0019 PRIME NAME A JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN DANCES WITH OPPORTUNITY, LC & DEBRA DRECKSEL ABC INC AIR WEST INC AMEC EARTH & ENVIROMENTAL INC AMEC EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL INC ARCADIS G & M INC ARCANUM INTERNATIONAL CORP AXIOM FINANCIAL RESOURCES INC AZ EQ SAFETY PARTNERING ROADEO B2GNOW / ASKREPLY, INC BOWLING & WHYTE C & S SWEEPING SVCS INC C B CONTRACTING INC C S CONSTR INC CARLA CARTER & ASSOC INC CARLA CARTER & ASSOC INC CARTER & BURGESS INC CHALMERS ENGINEERING CO INC CIERRA CONSULTING CO CIVIL AIR PATROL CLIFTON GUNDERSON LLC COMSYS INFO TECH SVCS COMSYS INFO TECH SVCS CONDEMNATION ANALYSTS CONSULTANT ENGINEERING INC CONSULTANTS IN DATA PROCESSING INC CONSULTING ENGINEERING CONTACT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SVCS DAN BOOZER ADJUSTMENT INC DANCES WITH OPPORTUNITY LC DANELOWITZ & ASSOC INC DBA BOTTOMLINE INVESTIGATIONS DANELOWITZ STAFFING LLC DBA D-STAFFING SOLUTIONS DATA METHODS CORP DATA METHODS CORP DATA METHODS CORP DATA SITE CONSORTIUM INC DATALINK SOFTWARE DATAMAVENS INC DAY & SONS LLC DEBRA DRECKSEL DESIGN MODULARS INC DESIGN MODULARS INC DESIGN MODULARS INC DESIGN ONE INC DKS ASSOC DMJM HARRIS DONATO CONSULTING INC DOUBLETREE CUSTOM EXCAVATING EAGLE PRINTING EQUIP EAGLE PRINTING EQUIP EASTERN PRODUCTS FOUNDRY ECO PLAN ASSOC ECOPLAN ASSOC INC ECOPLAN ASSOC, INC ELIZABETH MAGOON & ASSOC EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT SYSTEMS ENVIROMENTAL COMPLIANCE GRP INC ENVIROMENTAL COMPLIANCE GRP, INC AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY PRIME COUNTY_ST $13,500.00 2002 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $25,805.85 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $3,824.83 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $4,285.25 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $86,062.50 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $463,532.40 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $213,250.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,838.93 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $31,795.00 2007 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $29,573.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $423,320.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $36,181.20 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $60,585.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $511,263.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $198,675.91 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $130,351.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $99,346.49 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $120,856.82 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $63,372.38 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $32,456.78 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $114,925.52 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $411,015.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $11,495.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $875.00 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $96,194.69 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN MARICOPA, AZ $320,740.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $150,709.24 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN MARICOPA, AZ $70,125.00 2002 NONMINORITY MOHAVE, AZ $2,548.20 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $106,143.24 2002 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $194,677.71 2003 HISPANIC AMERICAN MARICOPA, AZ $83,795.41 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN MARICOPA, AZ $14,820.00 2005 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $14,820.00 2005 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $14,820.00 2004 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $24,700.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $52,893.75 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $550,409.50 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $15,358.24 2005 NONMINORITY NAVAJO, AZ $699,540.99 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $333,836.34 2007 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $33,990.00 2007 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $59,850.00 2007 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $42,156.39 2002 ASIAN AMERICAN MARICOPA, AZ $155,353.67 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $29,322.87 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $28,318.70 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN PIMA, AZ $65,963.01 2003 NONMINORITY GILA, AZ $17,377.67 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $34,872.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $15,148.04 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $330,870.35 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $219,403.90 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $6,342.82 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $119,650.87 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $338,850.22 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $27,803.75 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS Page A-89 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # T0658A0001 T0558A0021 T0702A0010 T0758A0008 T0713A0001 T0348J0024 T0658E0006 T0549A0026 T0549A0027 T0248F0002 T0649A0018 T0458A0004 T0449N0001 T0549A0012 T0548A0031 T0717A0001 T0159I0123 T0402A0002 T0649B0018 T0213A0127 T0649D0018 T0402A0004 T0349B0034 T0158AK010 T0159D0123 T0449P0001 T0649E0018 T0448D0044 T0213A0173 T0249A0021 T0549A0024 T0402A0001 T0649A0014 T0258A0015 T0540A0039 T0540A0166 T0658C0006 T0649C0018 T0558A0003 T0248M0022 T0158AB010 T0348A0016 T0649C0001 T0349A0004 T0348A0012 T0349A0018 T0348A0005 T0549A0011 T0213A0045 T0349B0018 T0649A0022 T0411A0020 T0549B0002 T0159B0123 T0449W0001 T0159L0123 T0649B0014 PRIME NAME ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE GRP INC ENVIRONMENTAL INFO ASSOC FIBERQUANT INC FIRST EMPLOYMENT SVCS INC FIRST EMPLOYMENT SVCS INC FM GROUP INC FNT FIBER NETWORK TRAINING & CONSULTING SVCS GEC-SA&B GENERAL MODULAR SALES & LEASING GENERAL MODULAR SALES & LEASING GLOBAL SYSTEMS MODELING INC GORDLEY DESIGN GRP HANRATTY INVESTIGATIONS & POLYGRAPH HDR HDR ENGINEERING HIGGINS & ASSOC INTERWEST SAFETY SUPPLY ITS ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS OF UTAH INC JABER ENGINEERING JACOBS ENGINEERING JILLOTTI ELECTRICAL SVC CO INC KANEEN ADVERTISING & PUBLIC RELATIONS INC KANEEN ADVERTISING & PUBLIC RELATIONS INC KEEGAN, LINSCOTT & KENON PC KEELE STREET LLC KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOC INC KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOC INC KRISTIN DARR & ASSOCIATES KUNIKLO CORP L BARRIOS & ASSOC INC LEE ENGINEERING LLC LEE ENGINEERING LLC LEE ENGINEERING LLC LEWIN & ASSOC LLC LIGHTING SCIENCES INC LITTLE AMERICA LITTLE AMERICA LOGAN SIMPSON DESIGN INC LOGAN SIMPSON DESIGN INC LORENTINO FORENSIC POLYGRAPH LLC LOUIS BERGER GRP LUCID SOLUTIONS INC MACTEC ENGINEERING & CONSULTING MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS MARKETING INTELLIGENCE LLC MARKETING INTELLIGENCE LLC MEDIA BUYING SVCS INC MICHAEL BAKER JR INC MIND MATRIX CONSULTING LLC MONEY HANDLING MACHINES MOSES ANSHELL INC N WEISS ASSOCIATES NESBITT CONTRACTING CO INC ONWARDS & UPWARDS LLC OZ ENGINEERING INC PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF, QUADE & DOUGLAS INC PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF, QUADE & DOUGLAS INC PARTNERS FOR STRATEGIC ACTION INC AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY PRIME COUNTY_ST $49,980.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $45,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $9,466.50 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $7,081.81 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $34,021.75 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $39,935.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $102,527.89 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $529,213.92 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $492,660.32 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $129,798.95 2002 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $5,469.50 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN PIMA, AZ $4,000.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $469,941.27 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $50,000.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $12,375.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $55,121.20 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $2,992,830.08 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $119,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $201,537.53 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $394,607.93 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $83,727.19 2006 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $29,084.66 2004 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $679,857.10 2004 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $638,474.02 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $720,445.56 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,150,928.98 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $157,866.78 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $32,228.24 2005 HISPANIC AMERICAN MARICOPA, AZ $6,244.23 2002 NONMINORITY MOHAVE, AZ $148,930.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $14,975.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $74,790.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $795,439.26 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $55,000.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $11,362.58 2005 NONMINORITY COCONINO, AZ $1,226.86 2005 NONMINORITY COCONINO, AZ $93,722.40 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $27,348.29 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $21,305.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $136,085.16 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $695,935.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $103,093.35 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $13,501,459.97 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $15,000.00 2003 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $14,999.99 2003 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $597,209.62 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $99,082.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $675.00 2005 NONMINORITY YAVAPAI, AZ $82,507.95 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,704,562.59 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $4,500.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $473,333.65 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $289,140.22 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,744,013.75 2002 HISPANIC AMERICAN MARICOPA, AZ $360,001.29 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $16,126.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,126,799.24 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS Page A-90 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # T0159F0123 T0448E0044 T0459A0112 T0640A0021 T0558A0010 T0248L0012 T0649C0014 T0448F0044 T0549A0028 T0349G0034 T0158AL010 T0718A0022 T0258A0002 T0749A0027 T0549C0002 T0248B0012 T0548A0036 T0348A0001 T0159N0123 T0302A0011 T0440A0075 T0840A0030 T0348C0024 T0348M0024 T0158AV010 T0658D0006 T0218A0067 T0358J0001 T0243A0016 T0248Q0012 T0449AF001 T0449AG001 T0449AB001 T0549C0029 T0549E0002 T0649F0018 T0449AK001 T0740A0183 T0248J0022 T0248N0012 T0548A0013 T0348A0024 T0159E0123 T0449AL001 T0259A0072 T0158BC010 T0248A0008 PRIME NAME PBS & J PEOPLE BUILDERS PEOPLE BUILDERS PHX HWY PRODUCTS INC PHX MARRIOTT MESA PMA CONSULTANTS PMA/PLANNING & MANAGEMENT: APPLIED POLICY DEVELOP GRP, INC PROGRESSIVE TRAINING CONSULTANTS INC PROPHECY CONSULT GRP R & A CPA'S R B BALCH & ASSOC R.D.O. EQUIP CO RBC DAIN RAUSCHER INC RESOURCE MARKETING GRP INC DBA REMAX RETIC CONSULT LLC RH & ASSOC RUBBER PAVEMENTS ASSOC SABH OF AZ INC (DBA CONTACT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SVCS) SIEMENS ENERGY & AUTOMATION, INC GARDNER TRANSP SYS BUS UNIT SOUTHWEST SAFETY CONGRESS SOUTHWEST SAFETY CONGRESS SOUTHWEST VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ASSOC STANTEC CONSULTING T H WARD COMPANY LLC TECH ONE STAFFING LLC TETRA TECH INC THE COFFMAN COMPANIES INC THE MAGUIRE CO THOMAS REPROGRAPHICS INC TIMMIS & ASSOC LTD TRAFFIC RESEARCH & ANALYSIS TRANSCORE TRANSIT MARKETING LLC UNIVERSAL FIELD SVCS INC UNIVERSAL FIELD SVCS INC URS CORP URS CORP VISCOUNT SUITE HOTEL WESTERN AIR MAPS INC WIN WIN CREATIONS WOMENS TRANSP SEMINAR WORKPLACE SAFETY SPECIALISTS WORKS CONSULTING LLC WORKS CONSULTING LLC WUNDERLICH MALEC SYSTEMS INC X2 PROFESSIONAL GRP INC Z & H ENGINEERING INC AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY PRIME COUNTY_ST $525,139.89 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,300.00 2005 NONMINORITY YAVAPAI, AZ $110,289.03 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $30,262.63 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $483,317.11 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $243,470.62 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $838,455.34 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $41,967.10 2005 AFRICAN AMERICAN MARICOPA, AZ $4,896.35 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $78,286.12 2004 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $1,421,859.25 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $1,454,648.26 2007 NONMINORITY YUMA, AZ $3,125,922.28 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $142,114.16 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $478,422.15 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $140,459.31 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $620.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $414,106.50 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $557,239.12 2002 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $2,790.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $8,541.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $320.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $5,500.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $145,767.51 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $679,055.00 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $4,539.13 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $68,964.74 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $36,060.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $12,662.59 2002 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $1,830.00 2002 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $598,864.42 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $36,963.57 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $20,296.31 2004 NONMINORITY WOMEN PIMA, AZ $60,312.33 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $3,339.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $86,991.04 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $852,272.62 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $8,346.00 2007 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $100,728.78 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $112,753.20 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $9,225.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $3,617.10 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $204,124.42 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $995,073.38 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $389,090.30 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $108,241.66 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $3,375,120.67 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS Page A-91 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # T0312A0047 T0612C0033 T0517A0021 T0511A0046 T0318B0024 T0218B0099 T0312D0030 T0718A0021 T0312A0030 T0311A0032 T0312A0038 T0412B0004 T0312B0030 T0712B0010 T0517A0105 T0412A0010 T0412A0011 T0312C0030 T0712A0011 T0520A0020 T0511B0050 T0311A0035 T0311A0053 T0411A0033 T0411A0007 T0725A0037 T0418A0002 T0312A0003 T0702A0013 T0712B0013 T0302A0003 T0512D0004 T0512A0040 T0218A0020 T0518A0045 T0512A0001 T0612B0033 T0311A0023 T0411A0046 T0612C0060 T0111A0033 T0211A0021 T0211A0001 T0211A0046 T0611A0089 T0511A0027 T0711A0062 T0113A0231 T0211A0049 T0311B0035 T0311A0046 T0211A0012 T0512E0004 T0411A0024 PRIME NAME ALL CLEAN SVCS INC ALLIED WASTE IND (AZ) AMERICAN INSPECTION AND TEST INC A-O PAINTING INC AZ AUTOMOTIVE EQUIP AZ BUS SALES CORP B & C CONTRACTORS INC BALAR EQUIP CORP BARNETT & SHORE CONTRACTORS LLC BASIN TREE SVC & PEST CONTROL INC DBA UNITED RIGHT OF WAY BASIN TREE SVC & PEST CONTROL INC DBA UNITED RIGHT OF WAY BASIN TREE SVC & PEST CONTROL INC DBA UNITED RIGHT-OF-WAY BCS ENTERPRISES INC BEACON GRP BINGHAM EQUIP CO BOSS GRADING & CONSTR BOSS GRADING & CONSTR BREINHOLT CONTRACTING CO INC BUG SNUFFERS INC C S CONSTR INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CAMARATA DISTRIBUTING CARTER OIL CO CLUFF'S JANITORIAL SVCS INC CORPORATE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS COVENANT MOBILE CLEANERS LLC DMJM+HARRIS (SUB SEVERN TRENT SVCS) DMS FACILTIES SERV DOUGLAS ARC EMPIRE MACHINERY EXECUTIVE AIRCRAFT MAINT G & G CONSTR CO GLENN WEINBERGER TOPSOIL INC GLOBAL DATA SPECIALISTS GLOBAL DATA SPECIALISTS GOODMAN ENTERPRISES INC DBA AZ PRO IND HANDYMAN MAINT INC HANDYMAN MAINT INC HANDYMAN MAINT INC HANDYMAN MAINT INC HANDYMAN MAINT INC HANDYMAN MAINT INC HMI COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPING INC HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES UNLIMITED INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS JANI-SERV INC LINCOLN SHERWOOD FENCE LLLP AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR $99,637.40 2004 $27,763.33 2006 $67,995.00 2005 $44,166.35 2005 $111,904.23 2003 $1,581,246.84 2002 $1,194,388.36 2003 $179,172.51 2007 $3,075,363.71 2003 $994,357.23 2003 $85,170.00 2004 $274,835.95 2004 $311,201.14 2003 $39,833.19 2007 $436,679.34 2006 $179,402.61 2004 $181,111.07 2004 $2,577,565.31 2003 $2,785.00 2007 $423,811.50 2005 $428,057.06 2005 $103,000.00 2003 $107,083.00 2003 $76,049.00 2004 $154,843.53 2004 $2,349.80 2007 $90,703.62 2004 $109,096.63 2003 $34,187.03 2007 $60,231.79 2007 $92,993.14 2003 $61,856.66 2005 $37,402.00 2005 $455,446.80 2002 $190,835.57 2006 $325,000.00 2005 $27,763.33 2006 $306,692.34 2003 $560,806.87 2004 $14,382.00 2006 $213,403.26 2002 $22,248.00 2002 $156,303.74 2002 $64,720.02 2002 $221,091.94 2006 $298,130.16 2005 $4,257.16 2007 $48,896.21 2002 $232,536.53 2002 $221,789.60 2003 $236,218.77 2003 $305,485.00 2002 $126,844.65 2005 $115,766.27 2004 PRIME_ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY PRIME COUNTY_ST YAVAPAI, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PINAL, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ LA PAZ, AZ COCONINO, AZ GRAHAM, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCHISE, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCHISE, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ APACHE, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS Page A-92 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # T0711A0065 T0621A0052 T0612C0055 T0311A0038 T0612A0041 T0312A0007 T0111B0027 T0312A0004 T0312F0030 T0217B0043 T0311C0032 T0512C0004 T0217A0043 T0243A0045 T0213A0130 T0213A0134 T0513A0016 T0412G0047 T0712A0010 T0321B0027 T0725F0037 T0321C0027 T0113A0255 T0411B0033 T0411A0002 T0412B0047 T0512A0002 T0725E0037 T0725G0037 T0725D0037 T0111A0027 T0213A0185 T0212A0026 T0658A0005 T0711B0040 T0243A0014 T0412A0037 T0612E0055 T0412C0047 T0212A0035 T0412A0036 T0412D0047 T0512A0004 T0712A0013 T0212A0002 T0313A0094 T0417A0036 T0321D0027 T0613A0052 PRIME NAME LINCOLN SHERWOOD FENCE LLLP MILLER MINING INC MOUNTAIN MAN TREES OAKCREEK CONTRACTING INC OPEN WORKS OPEN WORKS PARADISE WASTE SVCS INC PEDUS SVC PHX DEMOLITION CO & SALVAGE INC PHX TIRE DBA COYOTE TIRE PHX TREE SVC INC PROSTAR CLEANING SPECIALIST PURCELL'S WESTERN STATES TIRE QUALITY INTEGRATION SVCS LLC QUALITY SCAPES OF AZ QUALITY SCAPES OF AZ R K SANDERS CO RCD CLEANING SVC INC RCD CLEANING SVC INC RED MOUNTAIN MINING REGAN DISTRIBUTING RINKER MATERIALS SHRADER & MARTINEZ CONSTR INC SOUTHERN AZ PAVING & CONSTR CO SOUTHWEST SLURRY SEAL INC SOUTHWESTERN BLDG MAINT INC SOUTHWESTERN BLDG MAINT INC SPARKLETTS BOTTLED WATER SPARKLETTS BOTTLED WATER SPARKLETTS OF NORTHERN AZ SPECIALTY LOADERS TECHNICAL BLDG SVCS TERMINIX THE GEOMETER INC DBA AZ ENGINEERING CO THE PIGEON GUY THOMAS REPROGRAPHICS INC TREE CRAFTERS M-K INC TREE PRO TRI COUNTY BLDG SVCS TRI-CITY MAINT INC TRI-CITY MAINT INC TRI-CITY MAINT INC TRI-CITY MAINT INC TRU MAINT SVCS LLC UPRIGHT INC WATER & ENERGY SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY INC (WEST) WATSON CHEVROLET WHITE MOUNTAIN READY MIX WHITERIVER CONSTR AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR $11,693.91 2007 $343,249.46 2006 $408,465.00 2007 $21,034.33 2003 $70,349.32 2006 $136,906.57 2003 $13,975.53 2002 $1,600.92 2003 $78,061.25 2003 $78,022.05 2002 $2,255,560.35 2003 $174,343.93 2005 $49,992.16 2002 $18,000.00 2002 $5,295.00 2002 $15,146.71 2002 $50,304.00 2005 $39,649.18 2005 $82,118.83 2007 $119,819.76 2003 $5,006.17 2007 $9,282.76 2003 $1,200,576.02 2002 $779,179.76 2004 $6,017,057.25 2004 $52,555.00 2005 $120,753.87 2005 $5,144.21 2007 $218.60 2007 $19,461.04 2007 $73,761.84 2002 $3,458.83 2002 $148,373.00 2002 $1,024,961.93 2006 $61,113.50 2007 $11,387.38 2002 $112,257.76 2004 $408,465.00 2007 $59,345.44 2005 $18,726.00 2002 $297,055.17 2004 $30,311.00 2005 $58,864.89 2005 $15,785.78 2007 $259,704.90 2002 $66,302.82 2003 $199,403.17 2004 $13,716.95 2003 $151,854.67 2006 PRIME_ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY PRIME COUNTY_ST APACHE, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ GREENLEE, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MOHAVE, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ COCONINO, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ YUMA, AZ YUMA, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ GILA, AZ GILA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ NAVAJO, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS Page A-93 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # T0113A0279 T0513A0083 T0420A0027 T0521A0037 T0518A0031 T0725A0025 T0425A0016 T0613A0001 T0513A0114 T0313A0092 T0417A0003 T0418F0090 T0521A0015 T0317J0066 T0559A0117 T0717B0009 T0311A0051 T0218A0077 T0540A0119 T0621B0003 T0443A0032 T0643A0042 T0518A0030 T0217A0053 T0443A0011 T0418A0079 T0317B0002 T0418A0001 T0318A0042 T0217A0045 T0117A0089 T0618A0005 T0417F0003 T0617A0138 T0218N0090 T0321A0041 T0217A0037 T0620E0027 T0421B0016 T0521A0005 T0621B0002 T0420B0001 T0621A0079 T0317A0009 T0518D0042 T0518A0036 T0621A0067 T0420C0022 T0220A0001 T0417G0003 T0417E0017 T0417B0017 T0321C0033 T0711A0035 T0559B0117 T0759A0083 PRIME NAME A J ROBERTS IND INC A J ROBERTS IND INC ABATIX CORP ACTION BARRICADE CO LLC ACTION EQUIP & SCAFFOLD CO INC ADVANTAGE PAPER INC ADVANTAGE PAPER INC. AERIAL PHOTO LAB INC AGATE INC AGATE INC AGATE INC AIRPARK CHRYSLER JEEP AMERICAN FILTER & EQUIP CORP ARID SOLUTIONS LLC AUTO SAFETY HOUSE AUTO SAFETY HOUSE AUTO SAFETY HOUSE AXIS ENGINEERING AZ BUS SALES CORP AZ EQ SAFETY PARTNERING ROADEO AZ HWY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC AZ INK LTD AZ INK LTD AZ JOBBERS SUPPLY AZ MACHINERY CO AZ OFFICE TECHNOLOGIES AZ TRUCK CENTER INC AZ TRUCK CENTER INC AZ TRUCK CENTER INC AZ TRUCK CENTER INC AZ TRUCK CENTER INC BEAR CAT MFG INC BFS RETAIL & COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS LLC DBA -GCR TIRE CENTERS BILL LUKE CHRYSLER-JEEP & DODGE BINGHAM EQUIP CO BINGHAM EQUIP CO BORDER PRODUCTS CORP BRANCO MACHINERY CO BRIMHALL SAND & ROCK BRIMHALL SAND, ROCK & BLDG MATLS BRIMHALL SAND, ROCK & BLDG MATLS BRIMHALL SAND, ROCK & BLDG MATLS BROWN WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO BUSINESS IMAGING SYSTEMS C W CARTER CO CARE FREE UNIFORMS INC CARQUEST AUTO CENTERLINE SUPPLY WEST INC CENTERLINE SUPPLY WEST INC CENTERLINE SUPPLY WEST INC CHAPMAN AUTO CENTER CHAPMAN AUTO CENTER CHAPMAN CHEVROLET CHOLLA READY MIX INC CITY WIDE PEST CONTROL INC CLH INTERNATIONAL CLH INT'L AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY PRIME COUNTY_ST $1,745,803.61 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $189,789.75 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $67,670.75 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $39,082.47 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $25,489.20 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $63,735.50 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $17,859.25 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $80,960.00 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $40,755.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $155,498.00 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $25,578.39 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $15,710.72 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $19,475.95 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $951,409.91 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $67,747.02 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $122,186.80 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $93,579.49 2003 NONMINORITY COCONINO, AZ $10,525,923.99 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $28,810.00 2005 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $47,236.01 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN YAVAPAI, AZ $66,188.46 2004 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $91,903.82 2006 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $4,058.11 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $89,188.93 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $6,052.42 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $463,277.81 2004 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $468,418.14 2003 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $990,868.58 2004 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $593,324.08 2003 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $45,645.50 2002 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $57,783.09 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $111,142.67 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $447,047.51 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $48,453.67 2006 NONMINORITY YUMA, AZ $50,060.85 2002 NONMINORITY YUMA, AZ $15,662.37 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $83,662.85 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $55,503.63 2007 NONMINORITY NAVAJO, AZ $222,489.13 2004 NONMINORITY NAVAJO, AZ $32,922.61 2005 NONMINORITY NAVAJO, AZ $340,121.41 2006 NONMINORITY NAVAJO, AZ $1,978,342.14 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $125,718.42 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $58,329.04 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $57,389.89 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $876,166.30 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $47,337.53 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $297,950.64 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $302,714.20 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $19,983.84 2004 NONMINORITY GILA, AZ $11,143.41 2004 NONMINORITY GILA, AZ $448,682.95 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $40,977.43 2003 NONMINORITY NAVAJO, AZ $1,277.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $6,389.09 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $138,700.95 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS Page A-94 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # T0420A0001 T0418A0009 T0459A0083 T0218A0099 T0218E0090 T0721A0067 T0221B0012 T0117B0097 T0518A0023 T0613A0007 T0520A0044 T0717A0009 T0518A0014 T0317C0066 T0221A0058 T0217B0039 T0417C0003 T0659A0061 T0718A0017 T0218K0090 T0418E0090 T0417C0017 T0320A0053 T0520A0030 T0620A0010 T0621A0003 T0417C0018 T0418A0062 T0417B0018 T0618A0041 T0317A0053 T0117A0097 T0518D0030 T0317A0066 T0111A0036 T0321A0044 T0421C0016 T0521B0005 T0321D0033 T0621C0002 T0620K0027 T0521B0049 T0721A0005 T0511A0057 T0620H0027 T0321E0033 T0321G0014 T0218P0090 T0243A0034 T0520A0038 T0443A0048 T0418A0008 T0618A0015 T0718A0002 T0411A0017 T0312A0028 PRIME NAME CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS CONSTR 70 INC COPPERSTATE TECHNOLOGIES INC COURTESY CHEVROLET CRAFCO INC CRAFCO INC CRAFCO INC CUMMINGS SOUTHWEST INC CUNNINGHAM COMMERCIAL VEHICLES DESIGN MODULARS INC DISCOUNT PACKAGE SUPPLY DRAKE EQUIP DRAKE TRUCK & TRAILER DRAKE TRUCK & TRAILER DUST PRO INC EARHARDT EQUIP CORP EARNHARDT CHRYSLER JEEP SUZUKI EARNHARDT CHRYSLER, JEEP SUZUKI ECONOLITE EMPIRE MACHINERY EMPIRE MACHINERY ETW CORP FISHER CHEVROLET FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE G INC FIVE STAR FORD FLAGSTAFF EQUIP CO INC FORD OF NORTH SCOTTSDALE FREIGHTLINER AZ LTD FREIGHTLINER STERLING WESTERN STAR OF ARIZONA GENUINE AUTO PARTS GENUINE PARTS CO (NAPA) GENUINE PARTS CO (NAPA) GLOBAL DATA SPECIALISTS GRANITE CONSTR CO GRANITE CONSTR CO GRANITE CONSTR CO GRANITE CONSTR CO GRANITE CONSTR CO GRANITE CONSTR CO GRANITE CONSTR CO GRANITE CONSTR CO GRANITE CONSTR CO GRANITE CONSTR CO GRO INDUSTRIES INC HATCH CONSTR & PAVING INC HATCH CONSTR & PAVING INC HELENA CHEMICAL CO HENDERSON UTILITY EQUIP CO HOLMAN'S INC HOME DEPOT SUPPLY HUGHES-CALIHAN CORP I-10 INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS I-10 INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS I-10 INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION SVCS INC INTER AG SVCS INC DBA IAS LABS AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY $4,798,198.48 2004 NONMINORITY $819,875.60 2004 NONMINORITY $1,705,082.01 2004 NONMINORITY $2,487,193.92 2002 NONMINORITY $674,493.40 2002 NONMINORITY $72,759.31 2007 NONMINORITY $699,439.39 2002 NONMINORITY $66,787.46 2002 NONMINORITY $333,482.79 2005 NONMINORITY $100,929.50 2006 NONMINORITY $929.61 2005 NONMINORITY $13,092.94 2007 NONMINORITY $17,708.96 2005 NONMINORITY $62,726.75 2004 NONMINORITY $273,656.58 2002 NONMINORITY $25,286.71 2002 NONMINORITY $376,339.67 2004 NONMINORITY $490,808.36 2006 NONMINORITY $212,241.33 2007 NONMINORITY $58,071.54 2002 NONMINORITY $48,418.57 2004 NONMINORITY $22,565.33 2004 NONMINORITY $119,376.99 2003 NONMINORITY $440,169.64 2005 NONMINORITY $147,802.97 2006 NONMINORITY $1,919,327.46 2006 NONMINORITY $837,994.04 2004 NONMINORITY $66,199.85 2004 NONMINORITY $538,779.58 2004 NONMINORITY $119,397.50 2006 NONMINORITY $78,308.79 2003 NONMINORITY $38,878.35 2002 NONMINORITY $27,181.38 2005 NONMINORITY $3,894.27 2004 NONMINORITY $136,757.06 2002 NONMINORITY $36,858.25 2003 NONMINORITY $107,578.22 2004 NONMINORITY $22,405.45 2005 NONMINORITY $192,826.51 2003 NONMINORITY $287,396.31 2006 NONMINORITY $52,603.10 2007 NONMINORITY $9,918.61 2005 NONMINORITY $103,241.24 2007 NONMINORITY $384,509.25 2005 NONMINORITY $40,514.74 2007 NONMINORITY $96,215.37 2003 NONMINORITY $825,205.94 2003 NONMINORITY $29,170.80 2002 NONMINORITY $20,401.69 2002 NONMINORITY $4,601.09 2005 NONMINORITY $64,255.58 2004 NONMINORITY $292,901.27 2004 NONMINORITY $341,467.57 2006 NONMINORITY $237,173.77 2007 NONMINORITY $2,210.55 2004 NONMINORITY $3,343.00 2003 NONMINORITY PRIME COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ NAVAJO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS Page A-95 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # T0711B0014 T0543C0019 T0418A0026 T0225B0003 T0521D0007 T0620J0027 T0417A0018 T0248A0020 T0621A0016 T0711A0036 T0418A0090 T0425A0037 T0321B0033 T0518A0038 T0417E0003 T0518B0036 T0613A0061 T0725A0098 T0521B0015 T0518C0036 T0418A0004 T0618A0031 T0218A0045 T0359A0100 T0421A0001 T0425B0145 T0525B0029 T0517A0050 T0418B0022 T0549A0007 T0611A0035 T0521E0007 T0521D0005 T0425A0015 T0221A0015 T0212C0037 T0312A0044 T0521A0056 T0525B0031 T0417F0017 T0311E0002 T0443A0017 T0218Q0090 T0717D0009 T0521D0056 T0521A0049 T0521B0056 T0417A0017 T0218A0050 T0513A0097 T0159A0120 T0520A0047 T0418A0094 T0518A0040 T0317A0046 T0418A0068 PRIME NAME ITS ENGR'S & CONSTRUCTORS ITS ENGR'S & CONSTRUCTORS OF UTAH INC J & M WHOLESALE JC PRINTING JIFFY COPY JDM SAND & ROCK JDM SAND & ROCK JIM CLICK FORD KANEEN ADVERTISING & PUBLIC RELATIONS INC L P STEEL INDUSTRIES INC LINCOLN SHERWOOD FENCE LLLP LUBRICATION EQUIP & SUPPLY CO INC MACDANIEL SIGNS INC MACDANIEL SIGNS, INC MADDUX & SONS INC MARDIAN EQUIP CO MARTIN SWANTY CDJ MERLES AUTO SUPPLY MIURA CONTRACTING INC MONEY HANDLING MACHINES MOUNTAIN STATES WHOLESALE NURSERY NAPA AUTO PARTS NAUMANN HOBBS MATERIAL HANDLING NAUMANN HOBBS MATERIAL HANDLING NAUMANN HOBBS MATERIAL HANDLING NETSIAN TECHNOLOGIES NEW WEST MATERIALS NORTH STAR ICE INC NORTH STAR ICE INC NORWOOD EQUIP NU-TECH DIVERSIFIED PARTNERS IN BRAINSTORMS INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PAYSON CONCRETE & MATERIALS INC PAYSON CONCRETE & MATERIALS INC PHOTOMARK INDUSTRIAL (MARKOW PHOTO PROPERTIES) PHX HWY PRODUCTS INC PINNACLE PRINTS & EMBROIDERY PINNACLE PRINTS & EMBROIDERY PIONEER SAND CO POSTNET POWER CHEVROLET ON CAMELBACK PROCESS DYNAMICS PRODIGY OFFICE SUPPLIES QUALEX CONSTR INC QUALITY BUMPER RED MOUNTAIN MINING RINKER MATERIALS RINKER MATERIALS SANDS MOTOR CO SCALE CENTER OF AZ SHANNON CONSTR LLC SIEMENS ENERGY & AUTOMATION SMITH PRE-CAST SOUTHERN TRUCK EQUIP INC SOUTHERN TRUCK EQUIP INC SOUTHERN TRUCK EQUIP INC SOUTHERN TRUCK EQUIP INC AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY PRIME COUNTY_ST $6,890.00 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $3,713.24 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $43,308.93 2004 NONMINORITY NAVAJO, AZ $5,341.48 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $331.70 2005 NONMINORITY COCONINO, AZ $49,228.78 2007 NONMINORITY COCONINO, AZ $288,993.50 2004 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $9,939.17 2002 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $51,311.22 2006 NONMINORITY PINAL, AZ $84,083.20 2007 NONMINORITY APACHE, AZ $39,075.11 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $9,180.86 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $190,651.53 2003 NONMINORITY COCHISE, AZ $318,867.67 2005 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $60,610.46 2004 NONMINORITY MOHAVE, AZ $448,559.43 2005 NONMINORITY SANTA CRUZ, AZ $83,868.00 2006 NONMINORITY WOMEN PIMA, AZ $3,803.73 2007 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $3,760.83 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $612,411.45 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $49,747.62 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $28,646.50 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $76,316.44 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $747,014.99 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $15,301.36 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $904.80 2004 NONMINORITY MOHAVE, AZ $5,574.95 2005 NONMINORITY MOHAVE, AZ $18,067.73 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $151,156.86 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $10,950.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $2,171,502.02 2006 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $958.10 2005 NONMINORITY GILA, AZ $21,490.25 2005 NONMINORITY GILA, AZ $15,302.79 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $951,329.48 2002 NONMINORITY WOMEN MARICOPA, AZ $110,527.57 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $59,361.40 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $15,004.11 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $20,160.56 2005 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $71,242.10 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $57,784.02 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $4,810.00 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $49,476.80 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $7,391.51 2007 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $152,155.51 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $247,219.01 2005 NONMINORITY YAVAPAI, AZ $752.35 2005 NONMINORITY YAVAPAI, AZ $236,811.16 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $568,847.85 2002 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $39,989.00 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $469,622.28 2002 NONMINORITY PIMA, AZ $305,108.12 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $63,442.93 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $159,390.20 2005 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $64,588.92 2003 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ $97,706.71 2004 NONMINORITY MARICOPA, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS Page A-96 APPENDIX A CONTRACT # T0518A0041 T0225A0003 T0218C0069 T0218A0049 T0711A0002 T0721A0006 T0517A0003 T0417B0063 T0218B0090 T0617A0001 T0317A0044 T0621D0003 T0321A0033 T0521B0007 T0521A0012 T0620B0027 T0418A0010 T0520B0044 T0543A0037 T0520A0028 T0317A0002 T0417D0003 T0321D0045 T0218A0090 T0217A0048 T0221B0002 T0212D0037 T0321H0033 T0321F0045 T0620G0027 T0221C0001 T0513A0096 T0625A0025 T0417H0003 PRIME NAME SOUTHERN TRUCK EQUIP INC SOUTHWESTERN BUSINESS FORMS CO SOUTHWESTERN RESOURCES LLC SOUTHWESTERN SCALE CO INC SPECIALTY LOADERS STABILIZER SOLUTIONS INC SUN WEST CONTAINER CO SUPERIOR CLEANING EQUIP SUPERIOR SUPPLY SUPERSTITION TRAILERS LLC TRACTOR PARTS & SVC TRAFFICADE SVC INC TRI COUNTY MATERIALS INC TRI COUNTY MATERIALS INC TRI COUNTY MATERIALS INC TRI COUNTY MATERIALS INC TRUCK WORKS INC TUBE SERVICE CO TUBELITE CO INC TUBELITE CO INC TUCSON DODGE TUCSON DODGE TUCSON READY MIX INC TUCSON TRACTOR CO VERMEER SALES SOUTHWEST INC W A MORRIS SAND & GRAVEL WESTERN GLOVE & SAFETY WHITE MOUNTAIN READY MIX WHITE MOUNTAIN READY MIX WHITE MTN ROCK PRODUCTS WILBUR ELLIS CO WOODRUFF CONST XPEDX YORK MOTORS INC AWARD AMOUNT FISCAL YEAR PRIME_ETHNICITY $245,927.88 2005 NONMINORITY $30,486.56 2002 NONMINORITY $53,066.00 2002 NONMINORITY $63,393.12 2002 NONMINORITY $54,749.21 2007 NONMINORITY $16,539.30 2007 NONMINORITY $76,436.15 2005 NONMINORITY $28,469.00 2004 NONMINORITY $117,906.65 2002 NONMINORITY $79,582.28 2006 NONMINORITY $24,018.25 2004 NONMINORITY $95,357.72 2006 NONMINORITY $24,558.78 2003 NONMINORITY $5,270.28 2005 NONMINORITY $18,601.41 2005 NONMINORITY $15,339.76 2007 NONMINORITY $60,319.80 2004 NONMINORITY $5,712.64 2005 NONMINORITY $13,447.64 2005 NONMINORITY $17,776.09 2005 NONMINORITY $6,925.80 2003 NONMINORITY $231,033.16 2004 NONMINORITY $3,363.87 2003 NONMINORITY $147,157.54 2002 NONMINORITY $67,226.73 2002 NONMINORITY $58,997.20 2002 NONMINORITY $23,019.68 2003 NONMINORITY $18,235.84 2003 NONMINORITY $11,137.49 2003 NONMINORITY $8,691.60 2007 NONMINORITY $1,547.73 2002 NONMINORITY $58,121.95 2005 NONMINORITY $7,862.81 2006 NONMINORITY $65,191.60 2004 NONMINORITY PRIME COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ GRAHAM, AZ GRAHAM, AZ GRAHAM, AZ GRAHAM, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ GRAHAM, AZ MARICOPA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ NAVAJO, AZ NAVAJO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ BUSINESS CATEGORY GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS GS Page A-97 APPENDIX B: AVAILABILITY APPENDIX B SUBMITTED NAME A & S PAVING INC BROWN & WHITE INC TALIS CONSTRUCTION CORP ELECTRICAL CONCEPTS INC A I S CONSTRUCTION CO A J P ELECTRIC INC A J ROBERTS INDUSTRIAL INC A MINER CONTRACTING INC ABBCO SIGN GROUP INC ABBCO SIGN GROUP INCELECTRICAL CONCEPTS INC JV ACCENT LANDSCAPING & SPRINKLERS INC ACCURATE SMART & AFFORDABLE DBA ASPHALT SERVICES OF AZ INC ACHEN GARDNER ENGINEERING LLC ACME CONCRETE PAVING INC AMES CONSTRUCTION INC AMES CONSTRUCTION INC JV SEMA CONSTRUCTION INC ANNCOLE CONTRACTING CORP APACHE CONSTRUCTION CO INC ARCHER WESTERN CONTRACTORS LTD ARCHON INC ASHTON CO INC CONTRACTORS & ENGINEERS ASPHALT PAVING & SUPPLY INC AUSTIN BRIDGE & ROAD LP AVAZ INC DBA AUDIO VIDEO RESOURCES B & F CONTRACTING INC B R CONSTRUCTORS INC BECO CONSTRUCTION CO INC BISON CONTRACTING COINC C & E PAVING & GRADING LLC C INVESTMENTS INC DBA R K SANDERS C K C CONSTRUCTION CO C M A INC DBA C M A COM SERV CO C S & W CONTRACTORS INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S MCCROSSAN INC CAITLIN CONSTRUCTION INC CALDERON LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION LLC CALVIN L WADSWORTH CONSTRUCTION INC DBA C W CONSTRUCTION CARSON CONSTRUCTION CO INC CITYWIDE CONTRACTING L L C COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC JV VASTCO INC CONCO CONCRETE SPECIALISTS CONTRACTORS WEST INC CROSS BROTHERS CONTRACTING INC D B A CONSTRUCTION INC D G HUSKIN CONSTRUCTION CO D J S CO INC DARHIL CORP DESERT ROAD BUILDERS INC DESERT ROAD BUILDERS INC DBA ROCKBUSTERS DIAMOND SURFACE INC DON PETERSON ENGINEERS INC DBA D P E CONSTRUCTION DONALD B MURPHY CONTRACTORS INC ETHNICITY HISPANIC AMERICAN HISPANIC AMERICAN HISPANIC AMERICAN NATIVE AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY Page B-1 APPENDIX B SUBMITTED NAME E M E WEST CONSTRUCTION INC ELECTROBRAID FENCE INC ENVIRONMENTAL EARTHSCAPES INC DBA THE GROUNDSKEEPER F N F CONSTRUCTION INC FALCONE BROTHERS & ASSOC INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FISHEL CO FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO DBA SOUTHWEST ASPHALT PAVING FLAGSTAFF DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION INC G & G CONSTRUCTION CO G U Y CONSTRUCTION LLC GLENDALE CONTRACTING CORP GLOBAL SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS INC GONZALES CONSTRUCTION CO INC DBA GONZALES GUARDRAIL & FENCING GRANITE CONSTRUCTION CO GREEN LANDSCAPING & IRRIGATION INC H M S CONSTRUCTION CO INC DBA H M S CONCO INC HAN MAR ENERGY INC HARK DRILLING INC HARPER EXCAVATIING INC HATCH CONSTRUCTION & PAVING INC HAYDON BUILDING CORP HI TECH ROCKFALL CONSTRUCTION INC HOLDSWORTH CONSTRUCTION INC HUNTER CONTRACTING CO I T S ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS OF UTAH INC INTERMOUNTAIN SLURRY SEAL INC INTERMOUNTAIN WEST CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS INC INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEMS INTERSTATE ROCK PRODUCTS INC J BANICKI CONSTRUCTION INC J H DYKSTRA CO J N J ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC JENSEN DRILLING CO JENSON COMMERCIAL CONTRACTING LLC JONOVICH CO INC K A Z CONSTRUCTION INC K E & G CONSTRUCTION INC K E & G DEVELOPMENT LLC KIEWIT WESTERN CO KLONDYKE INC LADD & ASSOC LAFARGE CORP LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA INC M A C CONTRACTING INC M ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CORP M C S I INC M D MERRETT INC MACS GRADING PAVING & ENGINEERING INC MARKHAM CONTRACTING CO INC MASTEC ITS INC MASTEC NORTH AMERICA INC MAUELL CORP MCCAULEY CONSTRUCTION & MECHANICAL INC ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY Page B-2 APPENDIX B SUBMITTED NAME MCCAULEY CONSTRUCTION INC MCCORMICK CONSTRUCTION CO MCNEIL BROTHERS INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MERIDIAN ENGINEERING CO MORDEX CONTRACTING INC N A C CONSTRUCTION A DIVISION OF COLORADO RIVER MATERIALS INC N A DEGERSTROM INC N J SHAUM & SON INC NATIONWIDE FENCE & SUPPLY CO NESBITT CONTRACTING CO INC NICHE CONTRACTORS INC NICKLE CONTRACTING LLC NORTHERN ARIZONA SYSTEMS CORP OLDCASTLE M M G INC DBA STAKER PAVING & CONSTRUCTION CO INC P C L CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS INC PARAMOUNT DESIGNS INC PARK WEST LANDSCAPE INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PIERSON CONSTRUCTION CORP POWER ENGINEERS INC PULICE CONSTRUCTION INC QUACKENBUSH CONSTRUCTION CORP QUEST CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS INC R & L BROSAMER INC R D C CONSTRUCTION INC R E MONKS CONSTRUCTION CO LLC R E MONKS CONSTRUCTION CO LLC JV VASTCO INC R E MONKS CONSTRUCTION CO LLC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS JV RICHEY CONSTRUCTION CO INC RICOR INC ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO RUMMEL CONSTRUCTION INC S & S PAVING & CONSTRUCTION INC S J LOUIS CONSTRUCTION INC S P E SYSTEMS INC SALT RIVER SAND & ROCK CO SAMCOR INC SHADA INC DBA BENCHMARK CONSTRUCTION SHOW LOW CONSTRUCTION INC SILVERTIP DEVELOPMENT INC SOUTH COAST INC SOUTHERN ARIZONA PAVING & CONSTRUCTION CO SOUTHWEST ENVIROSCAPES INC STAKER & PARSON CO INC STANDARD CONSTRUCTION CO INC STRONGHOLD CONTRACTING INC SUNBURST LANDSCAPING INC SUNDT CONSTRUCTION INC SUNLAND INC ASPHALT & SEAL COATING SURFACE CONTRACTING INC SURFACE PREPARATION TECHNOLOGIES INC T & T CONSTRUCTION INC TANNER CO YUMA INC ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY Page B-3 APPENDIX B SUBMITTED NAME TECHNOLOGY CONSTRUCTION INC TERRA CAL CONSTRUCTION INC THOMAS GRINDING INC TIFFANY CONSTRUCTION CO INC TONTO SUPPLY INC TRANS TECH ELECTRIC LP TRANSCORE ITS INC TRUESDELL CORP UNDERWOOD BROTHERS INC DBA A A A LANDSCAPE UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT INC VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE INC VASTCO INC VELLUTINI CORP W R HENDERSON CONSTRUCTION INC W R SKOUSEN CONTRACTOR INC WADSWORTH BROTHERS INC F N WALKER BUILDING & ELECTRIC WARNING LITES & EQUIPMENT INC WAT IRR INC WESTMOOR ELECTRIC INC WEYHER CONSTRUCTION CO LLC WICKENBURG ASPHALT & PAVING CO ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC BISON CONTRACTING CO INC CACTUS TRANSPORT INC DOWN TO EARTH CONTRACTING INC FIVE G INC MIURA CONTRACTING INC PHILLIPS THREE INC PIMA PAVING INC RECON INC RURAL ELECTRIC INC SILVER EAGLE WESTERN LLC T L SMITH INC UTILITY CONSTRUCTION CO INC ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN Page B-4 APPENDIX B SUB NAME A & S PAVING INC A & S TRUCKING A 1 PAVING & GRADING INC A A AND R CONSTRUCTION CO A A C STRUCTURES OF ARIZONA LLC A C S CONAID INC ACTL A K SIGNAL & UTILITY CO A M TRUCKING INC A O PAINTING INC A PAC PRESSURE GROUTING AND STABILIZATION A R A ADJUSTMENTS INC A T L INC A TEAM PROFESSIONAL ASSOC INC A Z DESTINY CONTRACTING DBA DESTINY CONTRACTING LL A Z GRADEMAKER INC ABBCO ENTERPRISES LLC DBA ABBCO SIGN GROUP ABBCO SIGN GROUP INC ABSOLUTE SURVEYING & MAPPING ACTION BARRICADE CO LLC ACTION BARRICADE CO LLC ADAMS CONTRACTING & EXCAVATING LLC ADRA CONTRACTING INC AGGREGATE PRODUCTS TRUCKING LLC ALAMO STEEL DESIGN INC ALAN RENSBERGER TRUCKING ALBAS TRUCKING ALBO GUZMAN TRUCKING ALL CITY TRI CITY POWER SWEEPING INC ALL CUT CONCRETE CUTTING DBA MARZIALE ENTERPRISES ALLIANCE CONCRETE ALLIANCE SERVICE AND CONTROL SPECIALISTS INC ALLIED FORCES AMEC EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL INC AMERICAN ASPHALT & GRADING CO AMERICAN PRECAST PRODUCTS LLC AMMEX REBAR PLACERS INC ANAYA CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION INC ANDERSON EMERGENCY RESPONSE ANNCOLE CONTRACTING ANNS WATER SERVICE ANSCO INC APEX LAND SURVEYING APPLIED DIVING SERVICES INC AQUA DUCK INC ARAPAHOE TREE SERVICE ARGUS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES L dba ARGUS ENGINEERIN ARIZONA BLACKMAT CORPORATION ARIZONA DRILLING AND SAWING ARIZONA HIGHWAY SAFETY SPECIALISTS INC ARIZONA HIGHWAY SOLUTIONS INC ARIZONA HYDROSEED LLC ARIZONA INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES INC ARIZONA LABOR FORCE INC ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA RENEWABLE RESOURCES ARIZONA TRUCKING AND MATERIALS LLC ARROW STRIPING INC ARROW WATER SERVICE LLC ARTCRAFT GRANITE MARBLE & TILE CO ARVISO ENGINEERING INC DBA GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SE ASPHALT BUSTERS INC AUSTIN TRUCKING LLC AUSTON STRUCTURAL CONCRETE AUZA CONSTRUCTION INC AZTEC ENGINEERING AZTEC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE DBA THOMSON SWEEPING B & B PLUMBING INC B & F CONTRACTING INC B B P CONSTRUCTION CO B LINE DIRECTIONAL DRILLING LLC BARCON CORP SUB_ETHNICITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NATIVE AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN SUB-COUNTY ST BUSINESS CATEGORY PIMA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MOHAVE, AZ C COCHISE, AZ C PINAL, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MOHAVE, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C GILA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C GILA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YUMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C GILA, AZ C Page B-5 APPENDIX B SUB NAME BARNETT AND SHORE CONTRACTORS LLC BARNETT TOWING LLC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL INC BECHO INC BEDROCK LANDSCAPE MATERIALS & SUPPLIES BIFF BAKER FENCE CO INC BILL TOMS CONSTRUCTION BILLY COMEAUX TRUCKING BLADE RUNNERS INC BLASTING CONTRACTORS LLC BLUCOR CONTRACTING BOBS BARRICADES INC BREINHOLT CONTRACTING CO INC BRIAN HANCOCK TRUCKING BRIDGE STONE SERVICES BRIMHALL SAND ROCK & BUILDING MATERIALS BRIZCO CONSTRUCTION LLC BROOKS ENGINEERS AND SURVEYOR INC BROWN & WHITE INC BROWN TANK AND STEEL dba BRONCO TANK AND STEEL FAB BRUNDAGE BONE CONCRETE PUMPING INC BUG SNUFFERS PEST & TERMITE CONTROL BUNTIN EXCAVATING CO C & E PAVING & GRADING LLC C & S SWEEPING SERVICE INC C D DEVELOPMENT LLC C H B dba CHARLIE HANCOCK BUILDING INC C J S ENTERPRISES LLC C K C CONSTRUCTION CO C M C REBAR ARIZONA C M C REBAR ARIZONA DBA C M C STEL FABRICATORS INC C M TRUCKING INC C N ENTERPRISES C P C CONCRETE CUTTING INC C P C CONSTRUCTION INC C R S I CONCRETE RESTORATION SYSTEM INC C R SMITH CONSTR CO & TRUCKING INC C S & W CONTRACTORS INC C S CONSTRUCTION INC C S MCCROSSAN INC C T PRICE CONTRACTING INC C V A STRUCTURAL CONCRETE INC CABLE CONCRETE LLC CABLE SOLUTIONS LLC CACTUS ASPHALT A DIVISION OF CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CACTUS SURFACING SOLUTIONS A DIVISION OF CACTUS TR CACTUS TRANSPORT INC CALDERON LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION LLC CANO CONTRACTING INC CAPITAL EXCAVATING COMMERCIAL LLC CAPPS TRUCKING CAREFREE LANDSCAPING INC CARLSON ELECTRIC AND WATERWORKS CARLSON MASONRY INC CAROTHER STRUCTURAL CONCRETE INC CAROTHERS ENVIRONMENTAL LLC CARPETS OF DALTON MILL OUTLET INC CARSON CONSTRUCTION CO INC CARSON SAWCUTTING CASE FOUNDATION CO CASH TRANSPORTATION LLC CASTCATALRO ENGINEERING CORP CASTLE ERECTORS LLC CEMROCK LANDSCAPE INC CENTER CUTS LLC CENTRAL AZ GRADING AND PAVING LLC CHARLIE ORONA TRUCKING CHOLLA PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE INC CHRISTOPHERS CONCRETE PUMPING CLAYCOMB ROCKWELL WOODSON ASSOC INC COLLUM TRUCKING GALLUP TRUCKING SERVICES COMBS CONSTRUCTION CO INC SUB_ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY SUB-COUNTY ST BUSINESS CATEGORY PIMA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C PIMA, AZ C YUMA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C GRAHAM, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C PIMA, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C GRAHAM, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C APACHE, AZ C PIMA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C GILA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C APACHE, AZ C PINAL, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C Page B-6 APPENDIX B SUB NAME COMMERCIAL SHOTCRETE INC COMPLETE ELECTRICAL SERVICES A DBA COMPLETE ELECTR CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC CONFORMATECH INC CONSOLIDATED REBAR INC CONTINENTAL LIGHTING & CONTRACTING INC CONTRACTORS WEST INC COPPER CREEK PIPLINES AND EXCAVATION LLC COPPERSTATE DRILLING AND SUPPLY INC CORBIN ELECTRIC SERVICE LLC CORKCO CORNERSTONE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING INC CORRAL DYBAS GROUP INC CORTES ENGINEERING COSS WILKINS ENTERPRISES INC CRANE RENTAL SERVICE CROSS BROTHERS CONTRACTING INC CURB SERVICE INC CUSTOM SAW CUTS INC D & R STEEL LLC D & S EXPRESS INC D B A CONSTRUCTION INC D J S COMPANIES INC D P TRUCK SOLUTIONS INC D W LUSK CONTRACTING CO DAHL ROBINS & ASSOC INC DAL MOLIN EXAVATING INC DAVE CARTER PAINTING DAVES DRILLING LLC DECORATIVE MASONRY INC DELEON PAINTING INC DELEON PAINTING, INC. DESERT HORIZON DUMP TRUCK SERVICE LLC DESERT SEEDERS LLC DESERT TRUCKING INC DESIERTO VERDE DBA MONTAGE DESIERTO VERDE LLC DESIGN MODULARS INC DEWITT BROTHERS INC DIGGUM EXCAVATING INC DOHRN COMPANIES INC DON NORMAN SURVEYING DON PETERSON ENGINEERS INC DBA DPE CONSTRUCTION DOUGHERTY PAINTING CO DOWN UNDER CONSTRUCTION INC DUFF INC DUNN DEL RE STEEL DUST DEVIL CONTRACTING DW TRUCKING E R HAWKINS LLC EAGLE ROCK UNDERGROUND LLC EARTH REINFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS EARTHBLEND CUSTOM LANDSCAPES INC EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD dba REVEGETATION SERVICES ECHOLS GRADING & EXCAVATING ECOLOGY CONTROL INDUSTRIES INC ECOPATH CONTRACTING LLC dba BLENDTEC EGGEN WEED CONTROL ELECTRICAL CONCEPTS INC ENDO STEEL INC ENVIRO DRILL INC ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE INC ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES INC ENVIROSYSTEMS CORP ENVIROSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT INC EUROPEAN PAVERS SOUTHWEST INC EVERGREEN SPRAY SERVICE INC EXTREME CONTRACTING & TRUCKING SERVICE LLC F N F CONSTRUCTION INC FALCON CONTRACTING INC FANN CONTRACTING INC FARRELL TRUCKING FELIX CONSTRUCTION CO SUB_ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NATIVE AMERICAN NATIVE AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY SUB-COUNTY ST BUSINESS CATEGORY MARICOPA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PINAL, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C PIMA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C GILA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C YUMA, AZ C GILA, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PINAL, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C GILA, AZ C YUMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C COCHISE, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MOHAVE, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YUMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C PINAL, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C Page B-7 APPENDIX B SUB NAME FENCE DEPOT INC FENCING BY S K L L C FIELD LINING SYSTEMS INC FIERRO UTILITY CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC FIREBIRD TRUCKING FISHER SAND & GRAVEL CO FLAGSTAFF CINDER SALES FLATTOP TIRE & TRUCK SERVICE FLATTOUT TRUCKING FOCUS CIVIL INC FORESIGHT ENGINEERING INC FORTIS NETWORKS INC FULL CIRCLE ENGINEERING INC G U Y CONSTRUCTION LLC GARCIA METAL PRODUCTS INC GEOMECHANICS SOUTHWEST INC GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES INC GIL S DRILLING & EXCAVATING INC GILA REDI MIX INC GILBERT TECHNICAL SERVICES GILLESPIE TRUCKING GORDLEY DESIGN GROUP GOUDY ENGINEERING INC GRADYS QUALITY EXCAVATING INC GRAVEL EXPRESS INC GREAT AMERICAN SWEEPING GREEN EARTH L C GREEN LANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION INC GREGOR & GRENIER ENGINEERING INC GREGOR ENGINEERING INC GRIMES TRUCKING GRIMES TRUCKING & LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES INC GRUBER INDUSTRIES H 2 O 2 GO H 2 O ON WHEELS LLC HCPI H W JOHNSON INC HAN MAR ENERGY INC HANDYMAN MAINTENANCE INC HARDCORE BORING LLC HARK DRILLING INC HARRIS ARIZONA REBAR INC HARRIS ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP INC HARVEY TRUCKING INC HAWKER & EVANS ASPHALT CO INC HAWKINS ENTERPRISES LLC HERITAGE LAND SURVEY & MAPPING INC HERITAGE TRUCKING INC HIGH DESERT INVESTMENT CO HIGH PLAINS ENTERPRISES LLC HIGHLAND BENSON ASSOC HIGHWAY DISTRIBUTION SERVICES INC HITTY TRUCKING HOOK ENGINEERING INC HOPKINS FENCE CO HOPPER CO INC HORIZONTAL BORING & TUNNELING INC HOWE PRECAST HUNSAKER CONCRETE INC HUNTER CONTRACTING CO HURRICANE HOLES INDUSTRIAL FENCE SPECIALTY LLC INFOGUYS PBS LLC INLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC INTEGRATED LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT LLC INTERMOUNTAIN WEST CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CORP INTERNATIONAL SURFACING SYSTEM INTERSTATE MECHANICAL CORP INTRA AMERICAN FOUNDATION & DRILLING INTRINSIC CONSULTING LLC IRONCO ENTERPRISES LLC SUB_ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NATIVE AMERICAN NONMINORITY SUB-COUNTY ST BUSINESS CATEGORY MARICOPA, AZ C YUMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C APACHE, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C GRAHAM, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YUMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C GILA, AZ C COCHISE, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C PIMA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C COCHISE, AZ C PIMA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C GILA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C Page B-8 APPENDIX B SUB NAME ITS ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS OF UTAH INC J & C YORK TRUCKING INC J & D EXCAVATORS INC J & L HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION INC out of business J B N INDUSTRIAL FENCE INC J BANICKI CONSTRUCTION INC J H DYKSTRA CO J M TRUCKING J S A CO J S C CONTRACTING JAMES BOND TRUCKING JAMES WATER TRUCKING INC JC ROCK LLC JEVAS ENGINEERING INC JOE DIRT EXCAVATING INC JR HALL & SONS TRUCKING K & B ASPHALT CO K & J SERVICES LLC KEENES EARTHWORK INC KEEP ON TRUCKING KIEWIT WESTERN CO KIMBRELL ELECTRIC INC KLONDYKE INC L & L ASPHALT L P STEEL INDUSTRIES INC L S FENCE LLP LABOR EXPRESS TEMPORARY SERVICES LABOR SYSTEMS LABOR TEMPS LAND TECH LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION LLC LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC LANTZ WEED CONTROL LAYNES TRANSFER LEES TRUCKING LEONARDS CONCRETE PUMPING INC LINDSEY TRUCKING INC LITTLE SCRAPER CO INC LIVE WIRE ELECTRIC INC LOGAN SIMPSON DESIGN INC LORDS FENCE INC LUMER CONSTRUCTION INC M & J CONSTRUCTION INC M & J EXCAVATING M & S EARTH SERVICES M & S SHOTCRETE M A C CONTRACTING M L 2 EARTHWORKS LLC M R M CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC MACTEC ENGINEERING & CONSULTING INC MALDONADO OLSEN MASONRY INC MARANA CURB & CONCRETE INC MARCANTI ELECTRIC INC MARCO CRANE & RIGGING CO MARTIN PELLEGRINO MASCOT HOMES AND CONSTRUCTION LLC MASTEC NORTH AMERICA INC MATRIX LAND SURVEYING INC MATTHEWSVILLE EXCAVATING MAVERICK MASONRY INC MAXIM CRANE WORKS MC NEIL BROTHERS INC MCCORMICK CONSTRUCTION CO MCGRAW ENTERPRISES MCGUCKIN DRILLING INC MEADOW VALLEY CONTRACTORS INC MERCURY CONSTRUCTORS INC METRO SAW & SEAL INC MIDSTATE GUARDRAIL FENCE & SIGN MIKE S CONTRACTING INC MILLER LAND SURVEYING INC MODERN CONCRETE CUTTING CO MOHAVE ENGINEERING ASSOC INC SUB_ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN AFRICAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NATIVE AMERICAN HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY SUB-COUNTY ST BUSINESS CATEGORY MARICOPA, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C YUMA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C GRAHAM, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C PIMA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YUMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PINAL, AZ C APACHE, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C PINAL, AZ C GRAHAM, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C APACHE, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C GRAHAM, AZ C PINAL, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C APACHE, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C COCHISE, AZ C GILA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C COCHISE, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C GRAHAM, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MOHAVE, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C COCHISE, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C LA PAZ, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MOHAVE, AZ C Page B-9 APPENDIX B SUB NAME MOHAVE FENCE & GUARDRAIL MORRISON MAIERLE INC MOUNTAIN COMFORT HEATING AND COOLING MOUNTAIN POWER ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR MOUNTAIN STATES CONTRACTING INC MRM CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC N E S TRAFFIC SAFETY LP N J SHAUM & SON INC NAPOLES INC NATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL LLC NEW HORIZON CONSTRUCTION STAKING NEW HORIZON SURVEYING NICKLAUS ENGINEERING INC NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS NORTHERN ARIZONA MASONRY INC NORTHERN AZ SAWCUTTING AND CORING DBA PRO CONCRETE NORTHERN SURVEYS NORTHLAND EQUIPMENT RENTAL & SERVICE LLC NYCE CONCRETE INC O P C FABRICATION & EQUIPMENT INC OLSON PRECAST OF ARIZONA INC OOTHOUDT BROTHERS ORTA FENCE INC OTTO TRUCKING INC P A C E ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION INC P C I GROUP P M S TRUCKS INC PALO VERDE CONSTRUCTORS DBA PD CONSTRUCTION INC PARADISE HYDROSEED LLC PARADISE REBAR INC PARTITIONS & ACCESSORIES CO PAT KELTON GRADING INC PAULEY CONSTRUCTION INC PAVEMENT MARKING INC PENHALL CO dba PHOENIX CONCRETE CUTTING PETTERA ASPHALT PROFILING INC PHILLIPS THREE INC PHOENIX DEMOLITION COMPANY AND SALVAGE INC PHOENIX NATIONAL LABS INC PHYSICAL RESOURCE ENGINEERING INC PINE RIVER CONSTRUCTION INC PIPELINE SERVICES INC PLATEAU ENGINEERING INC POCO TRUCKING PREACH INC PRECISION PINE & TIMBER PRECON OF ARIZONA PREFERRED CONCRETE PUMPING INC PRICE ENTERPRISES, LLC PRO CONCRETE CUTTING INC DBA NORTHERN AZ SAWCUTTIN PRODUCTION CONTRACTING INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES INC PROFORCE INC PROGRESSIVE CONCRETE WORKS PROJECT INFORMATION ASSOC PULICE CONSTRUCTION INC QUAIL CORPORATION INC QUALITY TESTING LLC R & B TRUCKING R D SANDERS CONTRACTING COMPANY LLC R J C CONTRACTING INC R L WHITES WATER HAULING SERVICES R M C A T ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES R S BELL AND SONS CONCRETE R S T LAND SURVEYING INC R W K ELECTRIC CO INC RAINBOW REFINING CO RECON INC REDS DUMP TRUCK SERVICE REED LANDSCAPE REIDHEAD SAND & ROCK INC RENEGADE TRUCKING SUB_ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NATIVE AMERICAN AFRICAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NATIVE AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY AFRICAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY SUB-COUNTY ST BUSINESS CATEGORY MOHAVE, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C YUMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C COCHISE, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YUMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C Page B-10 APPENDIX B SUB NAME REVEGETATION SERVICES DBA EAST VALLEY GOLF LTD RICHIE TRUCKING RICKER ATKINSON MCBEE & ASSOC INC RIDDER CONCRETE INC RIGCO CONTRACTING INC RINKER MATERIALS RIVERA MASONRY INC ROAD MARKINGS INC ROADWAY ELECTRIC LLC ROBERT HALL TRUCKING ROCKBREAKERS CONTRACTING INC ROCKY MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT RENTALS LLC RODI TRUCKING RONS GRADING ROSENDAHL & ASSOCIATES INC ROY HAUGHT EXCAVATING INC ROYAL SIGN COMPANY INC ROYDEN CONSTRUCTION CO RST LAND SURVEYING INC RUGERS H20 TRUCKING LLC RURAL ELECTRIC INC S & B INSTALLATION LLC S C LEGACY CONTRACTING LLC S J A INC DBA ANDERSON DRILLING S M PAINTING CO INC S O S EXTERMINATING INC S W C A INC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS S W P P P CONSULTANTS S W P P SOLUTIONS LLC SABINO ELECTRIC INC SAFETY CONTROL CO INC SAGUARO SPECIALTIES LLC SAGUARO TRUCKING CO INC SAV ON FENCE CO INC SECURITY FENCE OF ARIZONA INC SERRANO PAINTING INC SHAWN ANDERSON GRADING LLC SHOTCRETE ENTERPRISES INC SHOTCRETE SPECIALTIES INC SHOW LOW CONSTRUCTION INC SHOW LOW DRYWALL SIERRA BLANCA HAULING LLC SIERRITA MINING & RANCHING CO SILBERCOM TRUCKING INC SILVER CREEK SAW AND SEAL LLC SINAGUA PAVING INC SLADE ENTERPRISES LLC SOUTHWEST CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION SOUTHWEST ENVIROSCAPES INC SOUTHWEST GROUND CONTROL LLC SOUTHWEST HAZARD CONTROL INC SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL RIGGING SOUTHWEST ROCK PRODUCTS LLC SOUTHWEST SLURRY SEAL INC SPEC INTERNATIONAL INC SPECIALIZED SERVICES CO SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC SPRAY SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL SPRAY SYSTEMS OF ARIZONA INC dba SPRAY SYSTEMS ENV STANTEC CONSULTING INC STARTANGLE LLC STINGER WELDING INC STODGHILL TRUCKING INC STRAIGHTLINE UTILITIES LLC STRUCTURAL GRACE INC SULLIVAN PAVING LLC SULLIVAN TRUCKING SUN DIAL MASONRY INC SUN SET TRUCKING SUN STATE ELECTRIC OF ARIZONA INC SUN WEST GOLF & RECLAMATION INC SUNBELT RECLAMATION INC SUB_ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY SUB-COUNTY ST BUSINESS CATEGORY MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C COCHISE, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C GILA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PINAL, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C APACHE, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C PINAL, AZ C GILA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C GILA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PINAL, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C GILA, AZ C PINAL, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C Page B-11 APPENDIX B SUB NAME SUNBELTS CONVEYERED AGGREGATE DELIVERY LLC SUNLAND INC ASPHALT AND SEALCOATING SUNRISE CONSTRUCTION INC SUNRISE EXTERIOR COMMERCIAL SERVICES LLC SUNRISE TRUCKING INC SURFACE CONTRACTING INC SWAINE ASPHALT CORP T & T CONSTRUCTION INC T 4 ENTERPRISES INC DBA MAKE YOUR MARK T A C BUILDING CONTRACTORS INC T A CAID INDUSTRIES INC T A T TECHNOLOGIES LLC T B T CONSTRUCTION CO INC T J TRANSPORT T L L ELECTRIC INC T PAC A DIVISION OF KIEWIT WESTERN CO T THERON CONSTRUCTION INC T WARNOCK TRUCKING INC TACIT SERVICES OF KINGMAN TANNER CO INC YUMA TAURMAN ENTERPRISES INC TEMPE CRANE INC TERRACON THUNDERBOLT CONSTRUCTION CORP OF ARIZONA TIFFANY CONSTRUCTION CO TITAN TRUCKING TK TRUCKING TOM MULCAIRE CONTRACTING LLC TORRENT RESOURCES INC TOTAL MAINTENANCE EROSION CONTROL LLC TRAFFIC MARKING LLC TRAFFIC SAFETY INC TRAFFICADE SERVICE INC DBA WORK ZONE SERVICES TREE PRO DBA PROGRESSIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INC TRICON CONTRACTING INC TRUESDELL CORP TRULY NOLEN OF AMERICA TRYNU TRUCKIN DBA CHAMBERS TRUCKING CORP TUCSON ASPHALT CONTRACTORS INC TWELVE FORTY ONE GRADING INC U S INSULATION NORTHLAND DBA UNITED SUBCONTRACTORS UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNITED RENTALS HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC UTILITY CONSTRUCTION CO INC VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALLEY RAIN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION VALLEYWIDE FENCE CO VAN WAGENEN SURVEYING VASTCO INC VERSATECH CONSULTING INTERNATIONAL CORP VILLA INC W S P INC W W ASPHALT WADE JOHNSON TRUCKING WAGON WHEEL TRUCKING WANNA BEE TRUCKING WARNERS NURSERY & LANDSCAPE CO WATER MOVERS INC WATER TRUCK WEATHERGUARD METAL CONSTRUCTION INC WEBER GROUP LC WEST POINT CONTRACTORS INC WESTERMOOR ELECTRIC INC WESTERN EMULSIONS INC WESTERN GRADE LLC WESTERN SUNSETS DEMOLITION INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WESTERN WASATCH CONCRETE PUMPING INC WESTMOOR ELECTRIC INC WICKENBURG ASPHALT & PAVING CO WILLIAM R ALLEN TRUCKING WINDSWEPT ORGANIX INC SUB_ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NATIVE AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY SUB-COUNTY ST BUSINESS CATEGORY MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C YUMA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C GILA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C YUMA, AZ C MOHAVE, AZ C YUMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MOHAVE, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C GILA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C PIMA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C PINAL, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C YAVAPAI, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PINAL, AZ C COCHISE, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C YUMA, AZ C PIMA, AZ C NAVAJO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YUMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C YUMA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C Page B-12 APPENDIX B SUB NAME WOLFSKILL GRADING SERVICE LLC WOODYS LANDSCAPING LLC WRIGHT CONCRETE PUMPING X-PRESS TRUX INC YELLOWKNIFE BUILDING SYSTEMS INC YORK TRUCKING LLC YOST & GARDNER ENGINEERS SUB_ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY SUB-COUNTY ST BUSINESS CATEGORY PINAL, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C COCONINO, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C GILA, AZ C MARICOPA, AZ C Page B-13 APPENDIX B ID 1408 1124 909 307 1460 1130 1131 1450 1054 1506 1478 1432 944 1423 1125 1127 1128 308 1438 1448 1074 1129 1538 137 1495 1435 1049 146 1136 149 1138 243 1140 1103 1468 1141 1601 1144 1498 1145 1522 1148 1151 1451 1152 1445 1146 1492 1147 1312 2017 280 140 1150 1434 1540 1158 159 1164 1172 988 1159 1470 CLEAN NAME 6 K CONSULTNG LLC A C & D ENGINEERING SERVICES INC A DYE DESIGN INC A K ENGINEERING A M CADD SERVICES INC A M E C EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL INC A M E C INFRASTRUCTURE INC A N WEST INC A R UTILTIY SPECIALISTS INC A T C ASSOC INC A TEAM PROFESSIONAL ASSOC INC A Z T E C ENGINEERING AANJI CONSULTING LLC ABSOLUTE SURVEYING ACASIA GROUP INC ACQUISITION SCIENCES LTD ACURA ENGINEERING INC ACURA TECHNICAL SERVICES LLC AERIAL MAPPING CO INC AGRA INFRASTRUCTURE AKALI LIGHTING DESIGN ALPHA ENGINEERING INC AMERICAN WATER SERVICES ANDES ENGINEERING LLC ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH ANTIDOTE CREATIVE DESIGN APEX ENGINEERING INC APPLIED ECONOMICS ARCADIS G & M INC ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTING SERVICES LTD ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH SERVICES INC ARCHITECTURE CO ARIZONA ENGINEERING CO ARTIC AIR HEATING & COOLING INC ARVISO ENGINEERING ASPEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS AXIS ENGINEERING INC AYRES ASSOC AZTEC EMBROIDERY & SCREENPRINTING AZTEC ENGINEERING AZURIX NORTH AMERICA UNDERGROUND INFRASTRUCTURE INC B E M SYSTEMS INC B J COMMUNICATIONS INC B K S ENGINEERS INC B N A CONSULTING INC B R W INC BALLINGER CONSULTANTS PC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL BASEPLANS U S A BENHAM CO LLC BERNARD DEUTSCH ASSOC BIGHORSE CONSULTING ENGINEERS BIOARCH LLC BIOZONE INC BOLDUC SMILEY & ASSOC INC BRIDGERS & PAXTON CONSULTING ENGINEERS BURGESS & NIPLE INC C F SHULER INC C H 2 M HILL C K ENGINEERING INC C K GROUP INC C L WILLIAMS CONSULTING INC C M G DRAINAGE ENGINEERING ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN ASIAN AMERICAN NATIVE AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NATIVE AMERICAN HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY AFRICAN AMERICAN AFRICAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ APACHE, AZ GILA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ PIMA, AZ AE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Page B-14 APPENDIX B ID 1175 1025 1546 1500 1458 1429 971 163 1161 1162 1514 1465 164 1165 1166 987 1168 148 1170 1536 1171 1173 1174 1176 169 1178 1179 176 1182 1183 1544 1185 1436 1017 1018 178 179 1535 1032 1194 1499 1198 1199 1201 1464 1190 1191 1192 1193 441 1437 1195 1427 312 2300 1196 1197 1452 1203 1215 1217 1218 1204 CLEAN NAME C M X LLC C R ENGINEERS INC CALL NICHOLAS INC CAN AM ENGINERING GEOMATICS CANNON & ASSOC INC CANNON & ASSOC TRANSYSTEMS CANO INTL CONSULTANTS INC CAROTHERS ENVIRONMENTAL LLC CARTER & BURGESS INC CASTCATALRO ENGINEERING CORP CASTRO ENGINEERING CORP CATALINA ENGINEERING INC CATHY D ARTHUR CONSULTING SERVICES CHALMERS ENGINEERING SERVICES INC CHRISTIAN CONSULTING DESING & ENGINEERING LLC CITY SENSE STUDIO LLC CIVIL CONCEPTS PC CIVIL GROUP LLC CIVILTEC ENGINEERING INC CIVITECH INC CIVTECH CLATANOFF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING LLC CLAYCOMB ROCKWELL WOODSON ASSOC INC COE & VAN LOO LLC COMPASS ROSE TECHINICAL SERVICES COMPUTRAN SYSTEMS CORP CONFORMATECH INC CONTINENTAL ENVIROTECH INC CONVERSE CONSULTANTS COOPER AERIAL SURVEYS CO COOPERHEAT MQS INC CORE ENGINEERING GROUP PLLC CORNOYER HENDRICK CORONADO ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT INC CORONADO STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING LLC CORRAL DYBAS GROUP INC CORTES ENGINEERING COSULTANT REGISTERED SURVEYING CULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS INC D E I PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LLC D K S ASSOC D L R PROPERTY PROJECT MANAGEMENT LLC D M G FOUR CORNERS RESEARCH INC D M J M HARRIS DAHL ROBINS & ASSOC INC DANELOWITZ & ASSOC INC DARLING ENVIRONMENTAL & SURVEYING DAVA & ASSOC INC DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC DEL SOL GROUP LLC DENNIS L LOPEZ & ASSOC LLC DESERT ARCHAEOLOGY INC DESIERTO VERDE LLC DESIGN ONE INC ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS INC DEUTSCH ASSOC DIBBLE & ASSOC CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC DIGITAL MAPPING ASSOC INC E D A W INC E GROUP LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN E P G INC E P S GROUP INC ENG PLINRS & SRVYRS E P S GROUP INC ENGINEERS PLINRS & SURVEYORS EARTH TECH INC ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN HISPANIC AMERICAN ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PINAL, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ AE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Page B-15 APPENDIX B ID 1205 1206 588 1210 313 1523 601 1211 1424 1455 1213 1219 1439 1220 814 1221 771 826 1222 285 1223 1225 836 1231 1226 1227 840 1228 1486 1229 187 1230 1467 1444 1232 1488 857 190 1233 1239 1240 1446 1242 1243 1236 350 1238 1440 1244 879 1245 314 1246 1247 1248 1257 1260 1520 1251 1469 1256 315 1259 CLEAN NAME ECOPLAN ASSOC INC EDWARDS & KELSEY INC ELECTRICAL DESIGN ASSOC INC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING INC ENGINEERING ALLIANCE INC ENGINEERING MAPPING SOLUTIONS ENSIGN DESIGN GROUP ENTELLUS INC ENTRANCO ENGINEERS INC ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE GROUP INC ENVIRONMENTAL RESOLUTIONS INC ERICKSON LEADER ASSOC ARCHITECTS INC ERNST & YOUNG EXPERT RIGHT OF WAY CONSULTING SERVICES LLC F O C MECHANICAL INC FAITHFUL & GOULD FLOOR & ASSOC FORE DIMENSIONS FORNEY TECHNICAL & SURVEYING SERVICES LLC FORSMAN INC DBA HORIZON SURVEYS FROG CREEK INC FUGRO CONSULTANTS INC G B TWO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE INC G M T S CORP GABOR LORANT ARCHITECTS INC GANNETT FLEMING INC GENTEC ARCHITECTS & EGINEERS INC GEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS INC GEOMECHANICS SOUTHWEST INC GEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES INC GEOTEK INSITE INC GERALD A DOYLE & ASSOC GILA RIVER CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GODEC RANDALL & ASSOC INC GOLDER ASSOC INC GRIJALVA ENGINEERING LLC GUTIERREZ CANALES ENGINEERING PC GUTIERREZ PALMENBERG INC H D R CONSTRUCTION CONTROL CORP H D R ENGINEERING INC H D R JOHNSON BRITTAIN H D R S R BEARD & ASSOC H E C ENGINEERING LLC HARRIS & ASSOC HARRIS ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP INC HATCH MOTT MCDONALD HIGGINS & ASSOC HOLBEN MARTIN & WHITE CONSULTING STRL HOLLY STREET STUDIO LLC HOOK ENGINEERING INC HOQUE & ASSOC INC HORIZON SURVEYING HUBBARD ENGINEERING HUITT ZOLLARS INC I N T I LLC I T S ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS OF UTAH INC INCA ENGINEERS INC INFRACONSULT LLC INGRAM DESIGN & ASSOC INLINER AMERICAN INC INTI LLC ISCOMME CONSULTING SERVICES ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NATIVE AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ AE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Page B-16 APPENDIX B ID 256 290 1265 1068 1261 1262 1263 1264 932 1509 1266 1073 1271 1276 1505 1268 1269 1270 1272 1275 410 2758 339 1279 237 1512 1280 1281 1282 1084 1422 1283 1284 1285 1479 1286 1287 337 1293 1296 1502 1288 473 1290 1292 1510 263 1294 1295 490 1297 1425 494 332 1298 1299 316 1454 1303 1306 1300 1472 1304 CLEAN NAME ITS IMAGINEERING CORP J 2 ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN J L K ENGINEERS J R ASSOC JACOBS CIVIL INC JAMES DAVEY & ASSOC INC JAY CHRISTOPHER & ASSOC JEFFERS & ASSOC PLLC JENNIE CURES EDEN WEST STUDIO JONES & STOKES JOSHUA LAND SURVEYING INC K & J INDOOR OUTDOOR SERVICE K J M & ASSOC K P F F CONSULTING ENGINEERS KELLEY WISE ENGINEERING KENNEY AERIAL MAPPING INC KIMLEY HORN & ASSOC INC KIRKHAM MICHAEL & ASSOC INC KITTELSON & ASSOC INC KLEINFELDER INC KNIPP DESIGN ASSOC L E A ARCHITECTS LLC L T M ENGINEERING INC LAING & ASSOC LLC LAM STRUCTURAL & ENGINEERING LAW ENGINEERING & ENVIROMENTAL LEE ENGINEERING LLC LEIGHTON GEOSCIENCE INC LIN & NASCIMENTO ENGINEERING LIVINGSTONE DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC LOCATION LAND SURVEYING INC LOCKWOOD ANDREWS & NEWNAM INC LOGAN SIMPSON DESIGN INC LONCO INC LVA URBAN DESIGN STUDIO LLC M 2 GROUP INC M 3 ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY CORP M ENGINEERING INC M G ENGINEERING LTD M J ENGINEERING GROUP M M L A INC MACTEC ENGINEERING & CONSULTING INC MCCLOSKEY PELTZ INC MCCLURE ENGINEERING CO MCGANN & ASSOC INC MCGOUGH GROUP INC MENTOR RESOURCES CONSULTING LLC MICHAEL BAKER JR INC MILLER ENGINEERING CO INC MODI & CO INC MOHAVE CONSULTING INC DBA DISCOVERY LAND SURVEY MOHAVE ENGINEERING ASSOC INC MONRAD ENGINEERING INC MOREA HALL EGINEERING INC MORGAN ENVIRONMENTAL MORRISON MAIERLE INC N C S CONSULTANTS LLC N E I ENVIRONMENTAL N F R A INC N J W ENTERPRISES LLC N WEISS ASSOC INC NES TRAFFIC SAFETY LP NICKLAUS ENGINEERING INC ETHNICITY AFRICAN AMERICAN NATIVE AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY AFRICAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY COUNTY_ST COCHISE, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PINAL, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MOHAVE, AZ MOHAVE, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ AE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Page B-17 APPENDIX B ID 1305 1307 532 533 1255 1258 1526 541 545 1308 1489 547 265 1309 1310 1315 1316 1539 576 1365 1383 1311 1524 1313 1545 1317 1318 3022 1319 1320 1321 1421 317 585 268 1367 1368 1369 318 1370 1371 1381 1382 1459 626 1387 382 624 1385 651 1384 1534 1395 1386 1388 1389 1390 1392 1393 1477 1456 1396 1462 CLEAN NAME NINYO & MOORE NOISE & AIR SOLUTIONS INC NOVAK ENVIRONMENTAL INC NYAH ENGINEERING INC O C I ONEFORCE CONSULTANTS INC O R COLAN ASSOC INC OLSSON ASSOC OMICRON ENGINEERING PLC ORACLE ENGINEERING GROUP INC ORIDIAN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES LLC ORIGIN MEDIA ORRIN ANQUOE ARCHITECTS OSMAN ENGINEERING OSPREY CONSULTING LLC OTAK INC P B AMERICAS PBS&J P H STRUCTURAL INC P K KLAND P M A CONSULTANTS INC PSOMAS PARAGON SURVEYING & RIGHT OF WAY SERVICE PARSONS CORP PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC PATTISON EVANOFF ENGINEERING PENDER ENGINEERING PHAROS CORP PHOENIX HIGHWAY PRODUCTS INC PHOENIX NATIONAL LABS INC PINNACLEONE PLATEAU ENGINEERING INC POST BUCKLEY SCHUH & JERNIGAN INC PREMIER ENGINEERING CORP PREMIER METALS INC PRESTIGE ENGINEERING CONSULTANT LLC PRIMATECH LLC PRIME CONSULTING INC PRIME DESIGN ENGINEERNG INC PRINCIPLE ENGINEERING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES INC PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS PROJECT ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LTD PROPERTY SPECIALISTS INC QK4 R A MILLER RG R B F CONSULTING R C C DESIGN GROUP LLC R CREATIONS INC R J ENGINEERING LLC R K DESIGN R S ENGINEERING INC R S T LANDSCAPING INC R W STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC RAY HARRIS CONSULTING LLC RECON ENVIRONMENTAL INC RICK ENGINEERING CO RICKER ATKINSON MCBEE & ASSOC INC RIO SALADO ARCHAEOLOGY LLC RITOCH POWELL & ASSOC RYDEN ARCHITECTS S A & B ENVIRONMENTAL & CHEMICAL CONSULTANTS S A F R DIG UTILITY SURVEYS INC S V E R D R U P CIVIL INC ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY AFRICAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY AFRICAN AMERICAN ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ AE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Page B-18 APPENDIX B ID 324 1419 1537 1397 384 1399 1400 1542 319 674 1402 1405 1406 1501 1407 682 1409 1410 1411 1412 1426 220 1529 322 390 1415 1416 1417 391 323 1418 1507 1373 1420 756 757 1372 728 393 1466 1374 736 1375 744 1377 1378 746 1521 1379 1322 1493 752 1323 298 1327 396 1328 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 CLEAN NAME S V R INC CONSULTING ENGINEERS S W C A INC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS S W TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SAGE ALLIANCE CORP SAGE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE & ENVIRONMENT SAGUARO GEOSERVICES INC SALABER ASSOC INC SCHRANER ASSOC SERAFINA TECHNICAL CONSULTING LLC SERBIN STUDIO INC SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL INC SHEPARD WESNITZER INC SHERMAN GROUP INC SIEMENS ENERGY & AUTOMATION INC SITETEK FINANCIAL ARTS INC SIXTY FIRST PLACE ARCHITECTS SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANTEC CONSULTING INC STARTANGLE LLC STEVE CORRALES ENGINEERING CORP STEWART GEO TECHNOLOGIES INC STORMWATER PLANS LLC STRATEGIC SAFETY PLANNING INC STRUCTURAL CONCEPTS INC CONSULTING ENGINEERS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS LLC STRUCTURAL GRACE STRUCTURAL GRACE INC SUNDARAM ENGINEERING INC SUNRISE ENGINEERING INC SVERDRUP CIVIL INC T B E GROUP INC T H WARD CO LLC T M V SYSTEMS ENGINEERING INC T N T TECHNOLOGY CO T Y LIN INTERNATIONAL TAHERI ARCHITECTURE TALLPINES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING CO TASK ENGINEERING CO INC TECH AID CRYSTAL INC DBA T A C WILDWOOD CO TECHNICAL CONTENT RESOURCE GROUP LLC TELVENT FARRADYNE INC TEN EYCK LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC TERRACON CONSULTANTS INC TERRANCE ENGINEERING CORP TERRANEXT LLC TERRASYSTEMS SOUTHWEST INC TETRA TECH INC THUNDERBIRD CONSULTING GROUP INC THUNDERBOLT CONSTRUCTION TIERRA DYNAMIC CO LLC TIERRA RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES LTD TONY VOYLES LC TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ENGINEERING LLC TRAFFIC RESEARCH & ANALYSIS INC TRANSCON INFRASTRUCTURE INC TRANSCORE I T S INC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSYSTEMS CORP TRINITY ENGINEERING CORP TRISTAR ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT INC TRUELINE ENGINEERING INC ETHNICITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NATIVE AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MOHAVE, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ GRAHAM, AZ AE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Page B-19 APPENDIX B ID 1338 299 783 1336 1337 1339 1443 1346 1347 227 1340 1341 1345 795 3553 1350 1360 1363 799 1349 1351 1352 1353 378 1508 1357 1358 1359 1361 1362 326 1364 821 823 CLEAN NAME U R S CORP UNGER CONCRETE STRUCTURES LLC UNITED CIVIL GROUP CORP UNIVERSAL FIELD SERVICES INC URBAN ENGINEERING INC V 3 LANDMARK ENGINEERING INC VSI V S I ENVIRONMENTAL V T N NEVADA VALCO SURVEYING CORP VALENTINE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS LLC VANIR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INC VERTICAL MAPPING RESOURCES INC VISION LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE INC VISUS ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC W A S S GERKE & ASSOC INC W L B GROUP INC W R G DESIGN INC WAIBEL & ASSOC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE WASHINGTON GROUP INTERNATIONAL WEST CONSULTANTS INC WESTERN AIR MAPS INC WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES INC WHEAT SCHARF ASSOC INC WHITMAN & CO WILLDAN ASSOC WILLIAM SELF ASSOC INC WILSON & CO INC ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS WOOD PATEL & ASSOC INC WOODSON ENGINEERING & SURVEYING INC Y S MANTRI & ASSOC LLC Z & H ENGINEERING INC ZAMIR HASAN & ASSOC INC ZEPHYR WINDOW COVERINGS ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NATIVE AMERICAN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ PINAL, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ AE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Page B-20 APPENDIX B MGT_VEN_NUM 129 909 1460 1130 1131 1478 1432 1128 308 1438 1129 137 1495 1435 1136 149 1138 152 1141 1498 1145 1151 1451 1492 140 1434 1540 1516 159 1172 988 1470 1546 1429 1511 1161 1564 1518 1162 1465 169 1183 1544 1185 1436 178 1198 1201 1437 1195 1427 1196 1197 1217 1205 1209 313 1523 1424 1455 1439 356 1226 SUB NAME A C S CONAID INC A DYE DESIGN INC A M CADD SERVICES INC A M E C EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL INC A M E C INFRASTRUCTURE INC A TEAM PROFESSIONAL ASSOC INC A Z T E C ENGINEERING ACURA ENGINEERING INC ACURA TECHNICAL SERVICES LLC AERIAL MAPPING CO INC ALPHA ENGINEERING INC ANDES ENGINEERING LLC ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH ANTIDOTE CREATIVE DESIGN ARCADIS G & M INC ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTING SERVICES LTD ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH SERVICES INC ARIZONA PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS ASPEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS AZTEC EMBROIDERY & SCREENPRINTING AZTEC ENGINEERING B J COMMUNICATIONS INC B K S ENGINEERS INC BARRICADE & LIGHT RENTAL BIOARCH LLC BOLDUC SMILEY & ASSOC INC BRIDGERS & PAXTON CONSULTING ENGINEERS C E I CONSULTANT ENGINEERING INC C F SHULER INC C K ENGINEERING INC C K GROUP INC C M G DRAINAGE ENGINEERING CALL NICHOLAS INC CANNON & ASSOC TRANSYSTEMS CARL KOMINSKY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT INC CARTER & BURGESS INC CASE FOUNDATION CO CASEYS BACKHOE SERVICE CASTCATALRO ENGINEERING CORP CATALINA ENGINEERING INC COMPASS ROSE TECHINICAL SERVICES COOPER AERIAL SURVEYS CO COOPERHEAT MQS INC CORE ENGINEERING GROUP PLLC CORNOYER HENDRICK CORRAL DYBAS GROUP INC D L R PROPERTY PROJECT MANAGEMENT LLC D M J M HARRIS DENNIS L LOPEZ & ASSOC LLC DESERT ARCHAEOLOGY INC DESIERTO VERDE LLC DIBBLE & ASSOC CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC DIGITAL MAPPING ASSOC INC E P S GROUP INC ENG PLINRS & SRVYRS ECOPLAN ASSOC INC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING INC ENGINEERING ALLIANCE INC ENGINEERING MAPPING SOLUTIONS ENTRANCO ENGINEERS INC ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE GROUP INC ERNST & YOUNG FIBER SPECIALISTS INC GABOR LORANT ARCHITECTS INC SUB_ETHNICITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY WOMEN AFRICAN AMERICAN AFRICAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY SUB_COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ GILA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ Page B-21 APPENDIX B MGT_VEN_NUM 1227 1228 1486 1229 1467 1444 1232 1488 353 351 1239 1240 1242 1243 1440 1244 314 1246 63 1469 288 290 1265 1262 1266 1271 1267 1505 1268 1269 1272 1274 414 1280 1284 1479 205 335 1292 1294 494 331 316 1303 1496 1472 1305 1307 295 1475 532 1258 1526 1314 1461 1539 1365 618 1431 1313 369 1545 317 SUB NAME GANNETT FLEMING INC GEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS INC GEOMECHANICS SOUTHWEST INC GEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS GERALD A DOYLE & ASSOC GILA RIVER CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GODEC RANDALL & ASSOC INC GOLDER ASSOC INC GORDLEY DESIGN GROUP INC GUNN COMMUNICATIONS INC H D R CONSTRUCTION CONTROL CORP H D R ENGINEERING INC H D R S R BEARD & ASSOC H E C ENGINEERING LLC HIGGINS & ASSOC HOLBEN MARTIN & WHITE CONSULTING STRL HOQUE & ASSOC INC HORIZON SURVEYING HUNTER CONTRACTING CO INGRAM DESIGN & ASSOC INTRINSIC CONSULTING LLC J 2 ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN J L K ENGINEERS JAMES DAVEY & ASSOC INC JOSHUA LAND SURVEYING INC K J M & ASSOC KANEEN ADVERTISING & PUBLIC RELATIONS KELLEY WISE ENGINEERING KENNEY AERIAL MAPPING INC KIMLEY HORN & ASSOC INC KITTELSON & ASSOC INC KLEINFELDER INC KRISTIN DARR & ASSOC LLC LEE ENGINEERING LLC LOGAN SIMPSON DESIGN INC LVA URBAN DESIGN STUDIO LLC M R M CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC MACLAREN DESIGN MCGANN & ASSOC INC MICHAEL BAKER JR INC MONRAD ENGINEERING INC MOUNTAIN GRAPHICS & DESIGN INC N C S CONSULTANTS LLC N F R A INC NAVAJO NATION ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT NES TRAFFIC SAFETY LP NINYO & MOORE NOISE & AIR SOLUTIONS INC NORTHLAND EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICE NORTHLAND RESEARCH INC NOVAK ENVIRONMENTAL INC O R COLAN ASSOC INC OLSSON ASSOC P B AMERICAS P B Q D INC P H STRUCTURAL INC P M A CONSULTANTS INC P S M SQUARED INC PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS INC PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC PARTNERS FOR STRATEGIC ACTION INC PATTISON EVANOFF ENGINEERING PREMIER ENGINEERING CORP SUB_ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NATIVE AMERICAN NATIVE AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NATIVE AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN SUB_COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ APACHE, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ Page B-22 APPENDIX B MGT_VEN_NUM 268 1367 318 1381 211 212 1385 1390 214 1393 1477 1456 1398 1398 1399 1542 698 1409 1410 1411 1412 1426 391 391 713 1373 1372 393 1376 1379 1323 396 1329 1331 1332 1334 1338 783 226 1443 1346 1347 789 1345 1351 378 1358 1359 1362 SUB NAME PRESTIGE ENGINEERING CONSULTANT LLC PRIMATECH LLC PRINCIPLE ENGINEERING GROUP INC PROJECT ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LTD QUALITY TESTING LLC R A ALCALA & ASSOC INC R J ENGINEERING LLC RICKER ATKINSON MCBEE & ASSOC INC RIGHT CHOICE RITOCH POWELL & ASSOC RYDEN ARCHITECTS S A & B ENVIRONMENTAL & CHEMICAL CONSULTANTS SAGE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE & ENVIRONMENT SAGE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE & ENVIRONMENT SAGUARO GEOSERVICES INC SCHRANER ASSOC SOUTHWEST MAPPING TECHNOLOGIES INC SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SPEEDIE & ASSOC INC STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC STANTEC CONSULTING INC STARTANGLE LLC STRUCTURAL GRACE INC STRUCTURAL GRACE INC SUN MAPPING LLC T B E GROUP INC T Y LIN INTERNATIONAL TALLPINES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING CO TERRACON CONSULTANTS INC TETRA TECH INC TIERRA RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES LTD TRAFFIC RESEARCH & ANALYSIS INC TRANSCORE I T S INC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT ENGINEERS LLC TRANSYSTEMS CORP TRISTAR ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT INC U R S CORP UNITED CIVIL GROUP CORP URBAN ENGINEERING INC VSI V S I ENVIRONMENTAL V T N NEVADA VALLEYWIDE FENCE CO VERTICAL MAPPING RESOURCES INC WEST CONSULTANTS INC WHEAT SCHARF ASSOC INC WILLIAM SELF ASSOC INC WILSON & CO INC ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS WOODSON ENGINEERING & SURVEYING INC SUB_ETHNICITY AFRICAN AMERICAN ASIAN AMERICAN ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY SUB_COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ Page B-23 APPENDIX B ID 415 1739 129 1117 1108 1064 1757 1088 1778 1783 1784 1075 133 1076 1788 1087 1037 1039 1803 1044 1828 1841 1053 1847 1947 152 1860 1101 279 1116 154 1098 1910 1109 1986 912 1990 927 222 949 950 2044 2057 958 2063 2067 963 2073 2075 2105 969 972 2089 162 2091 973 982 985 2127 CLEAN NAME 2 CATS CONSULTING LLC A B C INC A C S CONAID INC A S I MARKETING GROUP A W T DESIGN CONSULTING LLC ACHILLES SHIELD ACTION COMMUNICATIONS INC ADDISYS AFFILIATED APPRAISAL SERVICES AIR BRAKE CONSULTANTS AIR WEST INC AKETI LLC ALEJANDRA TORRES ALEXANDER ENTERPRISES INC ALFRED M BENSON CO INC ALMS & HOSANNA CONSULTING ALTERNATIVES IN ESPANOL AMBA SOLUTIONS INC AMEC EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL INC AMERICAN CONTRACTING SERVICE ANDREW J BRIEFER REAL ESTATE ADVISORY SERVICES INC APPRAISAL TECHNOLOGY INC AQUAVIDA POOL SOLUTIONS LLC ARCANUM INTERNATIONAL CORP ARIZONA EQUIPMENT SAFETY PARTNERING ROADEO ARIZONA PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS ARIZONA TRUCK CENTER INC ART FAUX YOU LLC ARVISO BUSINESS CONSULTING INC ARVIZU ADVERTISING & PROMOTIONS AVALON ACCOUNTING LLC AVIATION EDUCATION ADAPTIVE TRAINING SERVICES LLC AXIOM FINANCIAL RESOURCES INC AXIS POLITICAL CONSULTING B 2 G NOW ASKREPLY INC B A M CONSULTING LLC BAKER PETERSON BAKER & ASSOC INC BERRY REALTY BLAKE GROUP BODYLIFE DYNAMICS LLC BOND INVESTIGATIONS BOWLING & WHYTE LLC BRUCE D GREENBERG INC BRYDGES INVESTIGATIONS BULLHEAD LODGE ON THE RIVER BURKE WEISSENBURN LLC BUZZ MARKETING C & S SWEEPING SERVICES INC C B CONTRACTING INC C D I INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CAMPOS COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL C C I CANYON STATE REPORTING LTD CAREER HORIZONS CARI ANDERSON CONSULTING CARLA CARTER & ASSOC INC CARMEL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES CHANDLER DRAFTING SERVICE CHRISTIAN ENGINEERING & DESIGN LLC CIERRA CONSULTING CO ETHNICITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NATIVE AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ COCONINO, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ SANTA CRUZ, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MOHAVE, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PINAL, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ Page B-24 APPENDIX B ID 2163 2172 3371 2181 2182 2186 1000 2198 2199 1007 2205 2206 1009 249 1020 1021 1030 1031 2245 2259 2260 2262 2267 2268 2270 2271 2279 2284 434 448 464 2298 487 2318 2319 500 528 643 2335 2340 2342 540 587 2357 2363 2365 2368 600 2375 306 2381 638 644 666 673 2442 2444 2410 722 CLEAN NAME CIVIL AIR PATROL CLIFTON GUNDERSON LLP COFFMAN CO INC COLORADO CITY IMPROVEMENT ASSOC COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES COMFORCE TECHNICAL SERVICES INC COMPETITIVE EDGE CONSULTING INC COMSYS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES CONDEMNATION ANALYSTS LLC CONSULTANT SOURCING INC CONSULTANTS IN DATA PROCESSING INC CONTACT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES CONTRIVE DESIGN CONVERSANTBT CORPORATE DESTINATION SERVICES OF ARIZONA INC CORPORTATE LANGUAGES LLC CRICKET CONTRAST CROCKETT COMMUNICATIONS CURTIS GOODWIN SULLIVAN UDALL & SCHWAB PLC DAN BOOZER ADJUSTMENT INC DAN W MAHONEY INC DANCES WITH OPPORTUNITY LC DATA METHODS CORP DATA SITE CONSORTIUM INC DATALINK SOFTWARE CONSULTANTS DATAMAVENS INC DAY & SONS LLC DEBRA DRECKSEL LLC DEFINITIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC DENISE MERIDITH CONSULTANTS INC DESERT MOON TECHNOLOGIES INC DESIGN MODULARS INC DIVERSIFIED CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INC DONATO CONSULTING INC DOUBLETREE CUSTOM EXCAVATING DRICKEY PROHOW JONES & ASSOC PC DYNAMIC PATHWAYS INC E T C COMPLIANCE SOLUTIONS INC EAGLE PRINTING EQUIPMENT & GRIND EASTERN ARIZONA COURIER THE COPPER ERA EASTERN PRODUCTS FOUNDRY EDUCATION RESOURCES LLC ELEANOR URIAS INTERPRETER ELIZABETH MAGOON & ASSOC EMERLINGS OFFICE INTERIORS EMPIRE MACHINERY EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT SYSTEMS ENCORE PLANNIG GROUP ENVIRONMENTAL INFO ASSOC ENVIROSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT INC ENVISION ESTUDIO FOR LEARNING INC EUMOTIF INC EXHIBIT EXPERTS INC EXTANT TRAINING GROUP F M GROUP INC F N T FIBER NETWORK TRAINING & CONSULTING SRRVICES FIBERQUANT INC FINGER WORKS ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN AFRICAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MOHAVE, AZ LA PAZ, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MOHAVE, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ GILA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ GRAHAM, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ Page B-25 APPENDIX B ID 2419 827 830 2450 2451 831 2473 844 833 2470 835 2474 839 2475 2485 842 847 2497 849 2500 856 351 2542 3375 2551 876 2587 194 2616 2593 898 901 888 890 891 2619 895 2626 2635 288 2647 1069 2656 2659 2662 989 990 2678 992 2681 1002 2695 2697 400 2705 2706 2718 2721 408 CLEAN NAME FIRST EMPLOYMENT SERVICES INC FORM DESIGN STUDIO LTD FOUR THOUGHT GROUP INC FOWLER APPRAISAL FRAZER RYAN GOLDBERG ARNOLD & GITTLER LLP FUN CILITATORS GECSA&B G I S SOUTHWEST INC GALAXY PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS GALLAGHER & KENNEDY PA GATESIX INC GENE D COX CO GENERAL BUSINESS RECOVERIES INC GENERAL MODULAR SALES & LEASING INC GILBERTSON ASSOC INC GILTEK SYSTEMS INTL INC GLOBAL INNOVATIONS U S A GLOBAL SYSTEMS MODELING INC GLOBALSOFT CONSULTING INC GLOTEL INC GRIFFIN & ASSOC GUNN COMMUNICATIONS INC HANRATTY INVESTIGATIONS & POLYGRAPH HAVINS CO INC HEADQUARTERS WEST LTD HIRE STANDARDS LLC HULET & ASSOC INC I C A M SOLUTIONS LLC I N T TECHNOLOGIES LLC I T CONNECTIONS INC I T PROFESSIONAL LLC I V A MANAGEMET CO INC IN PHASE INTERNATIONAL INC INNOVA ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING LLC INROADS INFO INC INTEGRATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC INTERFACE GURU INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE INC I B M INTERWEST SAFETY SUPPLY INC INTRINSIC CONSULTING LLC J & A CONSULTING SERVICES J R 2 BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LLC JABER ENGINEERING JACOBS ENGINEERING JAN A SELL DBA SELL & ASSOC JENNIFER BUSINESS SOLUTIONS JERRED & JOHNSON INVESTIGATIONS LLC JILLOTTI ELECTRICAL SERVICE CO INC JIMENEZ CONSULTING SOLUTIONS LLC JOE E WOODS INC JOHN E STITH & ASSOC KALIL BOTTLING CO KARL BALTUTAT VALUATION SERVICES LLC KATHERINE HALPIN & CO LLC KEEGAN LINSCOTT & KENON PC KEELE STREET LLC KINGMAN AIRPORT AUTHORITY INC KINGMAN DAILY MINER KIRKLANDISH ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NATIVE AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MOHAVE, AZ MOHAVE, AZ PIMA, AZ Page B-26 APPENDIX B ID 414 199 2742 436 422 426 429 2766 2770 440 2776 444 445 446 2787 2791 2794 481 2869 458 335 3379 466 2808 2815 2820 2836 477 2844 484 2865 493 2877 503 2886 2890 504 2898 509 2912 517 2940 550 536 542 2963 544 2970 562 579 558 369 2991 560 3002 371 567 570 3025 CLEAN NAME KRISTIN DARR & ASSOC LLC KUNIKLO CORP L BARRIOS & ASSOC INC L G C ENTERPRISES LTD LADYBUG RESOURCES LLC LEE DAVIS & ASSOC INC LESIE CORP LEWIN & ASSOC LLC LIGHTING SCIENCES INC LINES & LIGHTS TECHNOLOGY LITTLE AMERICA LOCATION ROUTE SURVEYING LOGO LADY GRAPHICS & PRINTING LOPEZ TRANSLATIONS LORENTINO FORENSIC POLYGRAPH LLC LOUIS BERGER GRP LUCID SOLUTIONS INC M F A S MARKETING & ASSOC M J N ENTERPRISES INC MACK & JACKS MARKETING SOLUTIONS LLC MACLAREN DESIGN MAGUIRE CO MANAGEMENT TRAINING SYSTEMS INC MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS MARKETING INTELLIGENCE LLC MATRIX RESOURCES INC MEDIA BUYING SERVICES INC MEETINGS & CONCIERGES SOURCE LLC MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER & SMITH INC MICROMILLENNIUM MANAGEMENT CONSULTING MIND MATRIX CONSULTING LLC MOLERA ALVAREZ GROUP LLC MONTANDON FARLEY VALUATION SERVICES MORRISON GROUP INC MOSES ANSHELL ADVERTISING INC MOUNTAIN STATES PRINTING INC MOUNTAIN VIEW MEDIA NAGY PROPERTY CONSULTANTS INC NARASIMHAN CONSULTING SERVICES INC NATURAL DATA INC NEWMAN TUCKER GROUP INC NOGALES INTERNATIONAL O Z ENGINEERING OLD PUEBLO COUNSELING INC ONSITE INSITE INC ONWARDS & UPWARDS LLC OPTION II ADVISORS LLC OUTBACK ADJUSTING & INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES P B & J LLC P L R SERVICES LLC PARIS AGENCY PARTNERS FOR STRATEGIC ACTION INC PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE PATTERSON & ASSOC PLLC PEACOCK HISLOP STALEY & GIVEN INC PEOPLE BUILDERS PERFORMANCE MEDIA PFAELZER JOHNS AMEN & DEAN PHOENIX MARRIOTT MESA ETHNICITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY AFRICAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MOHAVE, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ SANTA CRUZ, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ Page B-27 APPENDIX B ID 3026 3046 577 3053 3061 606 612 269 3083 3084 379 3108 3110 3111 3131 3117 641 3120 627 3130 637 3145 3146 3147 648 3177 726 3184 668 3207 274 3226 3235 3238 3243 386 692 3255 698 3277 3280 700 3284 3293 705 3316 713 714 723 3343 754 734 737 738 3355 3357 750 3398 3401 CLEAN NAME PHOENIX MIDTOWN CENTER LP PIPER JAFFRAY & CO PLAN IT OFFICE CONCEPTS INC POLICY DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC PRESCOTT ALTERNATIVE TRANSP PROFIT ENHANCEMENT GROUP LLC PROGRESSIVE TRAINING CONSULTANTS LLC PROJECT INFORMATION ASSOC PROPERTY INVESTMENT GROUP INC PROPHECY CONSULTING GROUP LLC QAMELEON TECHNOLOGY R & A CPAS R & M MEDIA CONSULTING INC R B BALCH & ASSOC R B C DAIN RAUSCHER INC R D O EQUIPMENT CO DBA AZ INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY R H & ASSOC INC RADISSON SUITES TUCSON RAICES UNIDAS LLC RAYMOND S JONES LLC RELIABLE HOME HEALTH LLC RESOLUTION COPPER MINING LLC RESOURCE MARKETING GROUP INC DBA REMAX RETIC CONSULTING LLC RIVER LEE INTERNATIONAL INC RUBBER PAVEMENTS ASSN S Y CONSULTING SERVICES SABH OF AZ INC DBA CONTACT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES SANTRAC TECHNOLOGIES INC SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGIES CORP SCOTT BUSINESS GROUP LLC SHANTI PROPERTIES LLC NORTH PHOENIX RV PARK SIGNVALUE INC SIMON CONSULTING LLC SINGLETON & LEE SITEMADESIMPLE.COM SOLOMON TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INC SONORAN EQUIPMENT SOLUTIONS SOUTHWEST MAPPING TECHNOLOGIES INC SOUTHWEST MODELING DESIGN & ANALYSIS INC SOUTHWEST SAFETY CONGRESS SOUTHWEST SOUL CIRCUIT LLC SOUTHWEST VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ASSN SPARTACUS TECHNICAL SERVICES INC STARR ENTERPRISES INC STONE & YOUNGBERG LLC SUN MAPPING LLC SUNRISE PROMOTIONS SUSAN POSADA AGENCY SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY GROUP INC T J R DESIGNS TECH ONE STAFFING LLC TECHNOLOGY PROVIDERS INC TEHAN DESIGN TEMPE MISSION PALMS TERRA SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST INC THINKING CAPS CREATIVE GRAPHIC DESIGN INC THOMAS REPROGRAPHICS INC THOR GROUP INC ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN AFRICAN AMERICAN AFRICAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY AFRICAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY AFRICAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PINAL, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCHISE, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ Page B-28 APPENDIX B ID 3402 3407 758 762 397 773 779 3549 3555 365 3562 3611 3613 810 3617 3618 3622 3625 819 822 CLEAN NAME THRACE TECHNOLOGIES INC TIMMIS & ASSOC LTD TOP NOTCH THERAPY TOPETE STONEFIELD INC TRANSIT MARKETING LLC TRIAD WEST INC TUCSON EMBEDDED SYSTEMS INC VISCOUNT SUITE HOTEL VOLT SERVICES GROUP WAGLEY CONSULTING INC WALKER & ARMSTRONG LLP WIN WIN CREATIONS WOMENS TRANSPORTATION SEMINAR WORD COMMUNICATION INTERNATIONAL INC WORKPLACE SAFETY SPECIALISTS WORKS CONSULTING LLC WUNDERLICH MALEC ENGINEERING SYSTEMS X 2 PROFESSIONAL GROUP INC YURISH ASSOC INC ZELTZER CONSULTING ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ Page B-29 APPENDIX B ID 141 1050 1120 942 953 1011 1089 1078 1789 1797 1086 1095 1812 1041 1046 1051 1915 1916 1920 1060 1963 1099 1118 1983 1991 1123 2001 913 2009 923 924 936 938 945 2043 955 2048 957 2062 959 960 962 2083 2086 2095 2101 2161 2167 2174 166 999 1001 1015 2222 2228 1023 1026 1034 2283 CLEAN NAME A J O TRANSPORTATION A P L ACCESS & SECURITY A TEAM SECURITY & EVENT SERVICES INC A V ASSOC ABOUT BLIND CLEANING INC ACCURATE PLACEMENT LLC ADVANCE QUALITY PAINTING LLC ALL ABOUT PEOPLE INC ALL CLEAN SERVICES INC ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES ALLSTAR EMBROIDERY ALPHAGRAPHICS 213 AMERICAN INSPECTION & TEST INC AMERICAN JANITORIAL SERVICE LLC ANDREA JANITORIAL SERVICE APPLIED DIVING SERVICES INC ARIZONA AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT ARIZONA BAG CO LLC ARIZONA BUS SALES CORP ARIZONA MEDICAL TRANSPORT LLC ARIZONA PACIFIC MATERIALS LLC ARKS INC ASIAN AMERICAN TIMES B & C CONTRACTORS INC BALAR EQUIPMENT CORP BALLOON PEOPLE BARNETT & SHORE CONTRACTORS LLC BARTHOLOMEW GRAPHICS BEACON GROUP SOUTHWEST INC BEAMMING CLEANING JANITORIAL SERVICE BEIGE TECHNOLOGIES BEYOND CLEAN LLC BIO JANITORIAL SERVICE INC BLUE CACTUS TRANSPORTATION LLC BOSS GRADING & CONSTRUCTION BOWEN POLES RECYCLING INC BREINHOLT CONTRACTING CO INC BRIO GROUP DESIGN BUG SNUFFERS INC BUILDING MAINTENANCE SERVICES INC BUMBLE BEE PEDICAB BUSY 1 WINDOW CLEANING SERVICE CAMARATA DISTRIBUTING CAPITAL CLEANING CONTRACTORS CARTER OIL CO CATCLAW CONTRACTORS CITY WIDE PEST CONTROL INC CLEAN TEAM JANITORIAL LLC CLUFFS JANITORIAL SERVICES INC COLOR REPRO CONSULTING INC COMMER TECH COMPLETE PRINT SHOP INC CORBAN GROUP LLC CORPORATE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS COUNTRY MOUNTAIN TREE SERVICES INC COVENANT MOBILE CLEANERS LLC CREATIVE HUMAN RESOURCES CONCEPTS CURVES GRAPHIC DESIGN D C A PHOENIX GLOBE ETHNICITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN AFRICAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY COUNTY_ST PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PINAL, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCHISE, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ LA PAZ, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ GRAHAM, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ GILA, AZ Page B-30 APPENDIX B ID 2314 450 479 495 2317 498 2320 304 539 660 661 663 2397 691 721 357 741 815 816 825 828 829 3373 841 846 2491 2493 2504 353 853 863 2566 2539 866 872 875 3376 2594 887 889 900 902 903 198 919 2665 991 405 411 200 424 437 442 449 465 261 472 2860 2863 CLEAN NAME D M S FACILITY SERVICES DEPENDABLE PERSONNEL INC DIAMOND ROSE CREATIONS DIXON STUDIOS INC DOEHRMAN CO INC DOT TO DOT DOUGLAS ARC DRIVEN INC ECLIPSE LIMOUSINES LLC EVE VRLA DESIGN EVENT CONCIERGE LLC EXCELLENCE BY DESIGN EXECUTIVE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE FABULOUS EVENTS FAST ANSWERING SERVICE FAYE STEWART TRANSPORTATION SERVICE LLC FIVE CORNERS FILM & VIDEO CORP FOCUS COMPLETE SERVICES INC FOLKFUSION FORCE SOLUTION LLC FORTIS NETWORKS INC FOUR SEASONS TRAVEL INC GEOMETER INC DBA AZ ENGINEERING CO GET ORGANIZED GISTIC RESEARCH GLENN WEINBERGER TOPSOIL INC GLOBAL DATA SPECIALISTS GOODMAN ENTERPRISES INC DBA AZ PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES GORDLEY DESIGN GROUP INC GRAYS SECURITY & INVESTIGATION SERVICES H 2 O ON WHEELS LLC H M I COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPING INC HANDYMAN MAINTENANCE INC HAROLD HOMES & ASSOC MANAGEMENT CONSULTING HERNANDEZ CREATIVE HIRE SOURCE STAFFING SOLUTOINS LLC HOPI TRIBE I 10 INTERNATIONAL IMPRESSIONS ADVERTISING SPECIALTIES INFORM COMMUNICATION & MARKETING ITS ALLGOOD ENTERPRISES LLC J & B RESOURCES INC J I T STAFFING J P JANITORIAL & MAINTENANCE JAN CO JANITORIAL JANI SERV INC JET JANITORIAL & MAINTENANCE CO KIM HERBST DESIGN KONTIKI ENTERPRISES LLC LANDCORP PROPERTY MAINTENANCE INC LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTY M THOMPSON LINCOLN TRANSPORTATION LITAS JANITORIAL SERVICE LYONS CLEANING MALY & ASSOC INC MAX REPROGRAPHICS MAXION SYSTEMS LLC MILLENIUM AVIATION CORP MILLER MINING INC SAN FRANCISCO PEAKS TRUCKING ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY AFRICAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCHISE, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCHISE, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PINAL, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ Page B-31 APPENDIX B ID 2867 331 2889 506 329 328 515 2927 2954 2964 552 2986 561 2997 3003 565 3011 3019 3020 3029 3030 3381 575 583 584 596 605 607 3087 3094 3103 635 3113 653 654 631 3139 645 646 647 664 216 671 385 3231 685 686 687 678 694 696 3282 3285 3289 3291 701 710 716 3327 CLEAN NAME MISSION DISPOSAL & RECYCLING MOUNTAIN GRAPHICS & DESIGN INC MOUNTAIN MAN TREES MY BROTHERS KEEPER LIFELINE NATIONAL SECURTIY PATROL INC NEST ENERGY SYSTEMS NET MARKETING SOLUTIONS INC NEUMANN HIGH COUNTRY DOORS OAKCREEK CONTRACTING INC OPEN WORKS PALO VERDE EMBROIDERY PARADISE WASTE SERVICES INC PATTI REZNIK PHOTOGRAPHY PAVEX CORP PEDUS SERVICE PEREZS BODY SHOP PERKINS CINDERS INC PHOENIX CEMENT CO PHOENIX DEMOLITION CO & SALVAGE INC PHOENIX TIRE INC DBA COYOTE TIRE PHOENIX TREE SERVICE INC PIGEON GUY PIPELINE VIDEO INSPECTION PREDIX LINK INC PREFERRED PRINTING & GRAPHICS INC PROFESSIONAL ALTERNATIVES OF ARIZONA LLC PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL MANAGEMENT INC PROGRESSIVE ENDEAVORS PROSTAR CLEANING SPECIALIST PURCELLS WESTERN STATES TIRE QUALITY INTEGRATION SERVICES LLC R C D CLEANING SERVICE R K SANDERS CO R N O PRINTING R N R EVENTS RAYS CLEANING SERVICES LLC REGAN DISTRIBUTING INC RIGHT CHOICE III LLC RILEY KRAUS GROUP LLC RIPE CREATIVE S SARKISSIAN CO SCRUB N CLEAN LLC SECUREMED CORP SHOTCRETE SPECIALTIES INC SHRADER & MARTINEZ CONSTRUCTION INC SMALL FEAT PRODUCTIONS LTD SMART CARDS 4 U CORP SMART STAFF INC SNANNON S MARTIN CO INC SOMEBODIEZ GOTTA DO IT LLC SONORAN SHREDDERS LLC SOUTHWEST SLURRY SEAL INC SOUTHWESTERN BUILDING MAINTENANCE INC SPARKLETTS BOTTLED WATER SPARKLETTS OF NORTHERN AZ INC SPECIALIZED MAINTENANCE SERVICES INC STREET POLICE INC SUNSHINE MOVING CO SUNSITES TRANSPORTATION INC ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY COUNTY_ST YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ GREENLEE, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MOHAVE, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PINAL, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ YUMA, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCHISE, AZ Page B-32 APPENDIX B ID 3330 3346 776 731 3354 743 749 3356 751 753 3387 766 769 770 3446 3447 3455 3451 3459 359 3496 3517 786 3527 798 300 3571 3573 3605 805 806 3619 818 824 CLEAN NAME SUNSTATE SWEEPING LLC T & K COUNTRY LANDSCAPING LLC T R K ARCHITECTURE & FACILITIES MANAGEMENT TAYLOR MADE SECURITY & INVESTIGATIONS TECHNICAL BUILDING SERVICES TELECOM RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL INC TEMP CONNECTION TERMINIX TICO MUSIC INC TITAN TELCOM INC TOWN OF MIAMI TRAILSTONES HERITAGE ADVENTURES TRAVEL CREATIONS TRAX INTERNATIONAL INC TREE CRAFTERS M K INC TREE PRO TRI CITY MAINTENANCE INC TRI COUNTY BUILDING SERVICES LLC TRU MAINTENANCE SERVICE LLC U S RECOVERIES WORLDWIDE LLC UNITED GRAPHIC EQUIPMENT INC UPRIGHT INC URBAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS INC UTILITY CRANE & EQUIPMENT W & W JANITORIAL SERVICE WARRIORS PEST CONTROL WATER & ENERGY SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY INC WATSON CHEVROLET WHITERIVER CONSTRUCTION WILLIAMS SERVICES WILSON PRINTING CO WORKS OF ART PAINTING YEUNG PHOTOGRAPHY ZOHAR PRODUCTIONS INC ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY AFRICAN AMERICAN NATIVE AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY AFRICAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ GILA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ GILA, AZ GILA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ Page B-33 APPENDIX B ID 1725 1755 1905 1110 1738 1010 1756 1758 1773 1774 1785 135 1790 1082 1809 1810 1811 1813 1816 1043 1819 1052 1850 278 1058 1929 1954 1957 1958 1961 1962 1964 1063 1861 1102 1119 1121 1892 1893 1906 1107 2028 948 915 2010 935 2030 2033 2034 2035 939 940 2041 951 2046 2047 2049 2050 142 2053 2056 2069 2170 2076 2085 CLEAN NAME A & H CONTRACTING SERVICES A C S STATE & LOCAL SOLUTIONS A V R AUDIO VIDEO RESOURCES A Z COMMERCIAL LIGHTING ABATIX CORP ABRACUS INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY ACTION BARRICADE CO LLC ACTION EQUIPMENT & SCAFFOLD CO INC ADVANCED WATER SYSTEMS ADVANTAGE PAPER INC AIRPARK CHRYSLER JEEP AJAX BARRICADE ALL PURPOSE SIGNS LLC ALL SIGN SYSTEMS INC AMERICAN FILTER & EQUIPMENT CORP AMERICAN FILTER & EQUIPMENT CORP AMERICAN FIRE EQUIPMENT SALES & SERVICES CORP AMERICAN LINEN AMERICAN PLUMBING SUPPLY CO AMERICAN WORDATA INC AMERON INTERNATIONAL APRILS IMAGES & PRODUCTIONS LLC ARID SOLUTIONS LLC ARIZONA BOILER CO INC ARIZONA CONTRACT SERVICES INC ARIZONA CULVERT CO ARIZONA IMAGING SYSTEMS ARIZONA INK LTD ARIZONA JOBBERS SUPPLY ARIZONA MACHINERY CO ARIZONA OFFICE TECHNOLOGIES ARIZONA PAVEMENT PROFILING INC ARIZONA TEMPLATES INC ARNOLD MACHINERY CO ARTEMEUS DESIGN INC ASKANTI ATHENA EXPRESSIONS LLC AUSTRALIAN OUTBACK PLANTATION AUTO SAFETY HOUSE AWARDS BY C & L AWESOME ATOMS INC B F S RETAIL & COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS LLC DBA G C R TIRE CENTERS B N S PROMOTIONS BATTERIES PLUS BEAR CAT MANUFACTURING INC BETTY M & RAYMOND R CYBULSKI LLC BIG TEX TRAILERS BILL LUKE CHRYSLER JEEP & DODGE BINGHAM EQUIPMENT CO BINGHAM FORD NEW HOLLAND INC BIRDMAN III LLC BLACKHAWK METAL PRODUCTS INC BORDER PRODUCTS CORP BORDERS TURF & TRACTOR INC BRADCO INC BRANCO MACHINERY CO BREWER COTE OF ARIZONA BRIMHALL SAND ROCK & BUILDING MATERIALS BROWN & WHITE INC BROWN EVANS DISTRIBUTING CO BROWNS PARTSMASTER INC BUSINESS IMAGING SYSTEMS C L H INTERNATIONAL INC C W CARTER CO CANYON PIPE & SUPPLY ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NATIVE AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY COUNTY_ST PINAL, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PINAL, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ Page B-34 APPENDIX B ID 3369 2088 2093 974 975 977 2109 2119 2120 2124 2189 2201 2204 1013 1014 2215 2221 2229 1024 2231 2240 2244 1033 1035 2315 180 430 451 452 173 471 2312 491 499 2322 2324 2328 2330 2392 2394 2336 2338 2349 602 719 720 183 2423 2425 742 2427 2432 223 2446 2455 2456 838 2479 2480 848 2522 2550 2554 871 877 CLEAN NAME CARDI GROUP LTD CARE FREE UNIFORMS INC CARQUEST AUTO PART CARRSTAR INDUSTRIES CARTRIDGE GUY CAST & ASSOC INC CENTERLINE SUPPLY WEST INC CHAPMAN AUTO CENTER CHAPMAN CHEVROLET INC CHOLLA READY MIX INC COMMERCIAL VAN INTERIORS INC CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS CONSTRUCTION 70 INC COOPER CLIMATE CONTROL LLC COPPER STATE SUPPLY INC COPPERSTATE TECHNOLOGIES INC CORPORATE JETS INC COURTESY CHEVROLET COYOTE TARGETED PROMOTIONS INC CRAFCO INC CUMMINGS SOUTHWEST INC CUNNINGHAM COMMERCIAL VEHICLES CUPPS INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CYBERGEAR INC D M S ROOFING INC DATS CONCRETE INC DAVE SCOTT & ASSOC INC DESCALE IT PRODUCTS CO DESERT BARRICADES LLC DESERT SHIELD INTERNATIONAL INC DESIGNS OF TODAY DISCOUNT PACKAGE SUPPLY INC DIVERSIFIED DIAMOND PRODUCTS DOUBLE T SIGNS INC DRAKE EQUIPMENT OF ARIZONA DRAKE TRUCK & TRAILER DUNLAP OIL CO INC DUST PRO INC E T I ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY INNOVATIONS INC E T W CORP EARHARDT EQUIPMENT CORP EARNHARDT CHRYSLER JEEP SUZUKI INC ED MOSES DODGE INC ENVIRONMENTALLY SELECTED PRODUCTS FAMILY ENTERPRISE INC FANNIEL FASHIONS FIELD LINING SYSTEMS INC FISHER CHEVROLET FIVE STAR FORD FIVE STAR STUCCO LLC FLAGSTAFF EQUIPMENT CO INC FLEET SERVICES FLOOR STUDIO INC FORD OF NORTH SCOTTSDALE FREIGHTLINER AZ LTD FREIGHTLINER STERLING WESTERN STAR OF ARIZONA GEMINI READY MIX INC GENUINE AUTO PARTS GENUINE PARTS CO GLOBAL M D NETWORK LLC GRO INDUSTRIES INC HAYWARD CORP HELENA CHEMICAL CO HENDERSON UTILITY EQUIPMENT CO HITEMP METALS ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY AFRICAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY ASIAN AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY COUNTY_ST PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ GILA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PINAL, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCHISE, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YUMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PINAL, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ Page B-35 APPENDIX B ID 2575 2579 2586 349 2596 2642 885 2605 2622 896 2639 2648 2671 2672 2679 2702 2741 2752 428 438 2775 439 2779 2782 2793 2798 2801 2807 2817 469 2841 2848 483 486 488 2874 502 2892 2899 511 2913 2914 2925 516 2930 294 2944 2951 2952 535 2953 546 582 2990 2998 2999 566 568 3024 3018 574 3042 3044 581 3057 CLEAN NAME HOLMANS INC HOME DEPOT SUPPLY HUGHES CALIHAN CORP HYTEC INTERNATIONAL INC I 10 INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS I T SYSTEMS IMPACT B D C INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION SERVICES INC INTER AG SERVICES INC DBA IAS LABS INTERNATIONAL SELLING PROFESSIONALS IRRIGATION & SPRINKLER SUPPLY J & M WHOLESALE J C PRINTING JIFFY COPY J D M SAND & ROCK JIM CLICK FORD KAY AUTOMOTIVE DBA ONE SOURCE DISTRIBUTORS L & M BLDG MATERIALS LANE AWARD MANUFACTURING LEEO INDUSTRIES LLC LINDA PACHECO INTERIORS INC LINDEN PEARCE CONSTRUCTION INC LINDSEY TRUCKING INC LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP LOFTIN EQUIPMENT CO LUBRICATION EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY CO INC MACDANIEL SIGNS INC MADDUX & SONS INC MARDIAN EQUIPMENT CO MARTIN SWANTY C P D J E MATRIX FLOORING LLC MERLES AUTO SUPPLY METRO MATERIALS MICRO SYMPLEX INC MILLENIUM SHUTTERS & BLINDS MISC T METALS LLC MONEY HANDLING MACHINES INC MORENO WELDING INC MOUNTAIN STATES WHOLESALE NURSERY NAPA AUTO PARTS NATIVE TELE DATA SOLUTIONS INC NAUGHTON PLUMBING SALES NAUMANN HOBBS MATERIAL HANDLING NETSIAN TECHNOLOGIES GROUP NETSIS LLC NEW WEST MATERIALS LLC NORKEM DISTRIBUTOR NORTH STAR ICE INC NORWOOD EQUIPMENT INC NU TECH DIVERSIFIED O C H O A ENTERPRISE INC O C TANNER RECOGNITION CO ORIGINAL OINK LLC P P F CORP PARTNERS IN BRAINSTORMS INC PAYSON CONCRETE & MATERIALS INC PAYSON ICE & FUEL PERFECT PROMO PERPETUAL MARKETING PHOENIX INSTRUMENTATION INC PHOTOMARK INDUSTRIAL MARKOW PHOTO PROPERTIES PIMA AWARDS & PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS PINNACLE PRINTS & EMBROIDERY PIONEER SAND CO POSTNET POWER CHEVROLET ON CAMELBACK ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NATIVE AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NATIVE AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY COUNTY_ST PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCONINO, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ NAVAJO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ COCHISE, AZ PIMA, AZ MOHAVE, AZ MARICOPA, AZ SANTA CRUZ, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ APACHE, AZ MOHAVE, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ GILA, AZ GILA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ Page B-36 APPENDIX B ID 592 3063 593 3070 3071 3073 597 3100 3101 623 3109 629 3137 3142 3149 3152 655 670 704 3190 3197 3199 3203 676 3223 3225 3248 3252 3268 3278 3283 3286 3287 3288 3294 3305 3320 3321 3328 717 3331 3334 3335 3336 724 747 3411 394 3397 3429 3453 3460 3465 3466 3468 3469 3470 3491 791 3542 3546 1715 3565 3593 CLEAN NAME PREMISE ONE INC PRESENTA PLAQUE PRIMO PROMOS PRO PETROLEUM INC PROCESS DYNAMICS PRODIGY OFFICE SUPPLIES INC PROFESSIONAL IMPRESSIONS INC QUALEX CONSTRUCTION INC QUALITY BUMPER QUALITY VANS R & J TROPHIES RAM INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY RED MOUNTAIN MINING INC RENTAL SERVICES CORP REW MATERIALS RINKER MATERIALS ROBINET INC DBA ARIZONA INK S C MADERA INC S Q P CONSTRUCTION & MANAGEMENT SAFFORD TITLE AGENCY INC SANDPIPER RENTALS INC SANDS MOTOR CO SCALE CENTER OF ARIZONA SERVICE WEST DELIVERY EXPRESS SEXAUER SHANNON CONSTRUCTION LLC SMITH PRE CAST INC SNYDER PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS SOUTHERN TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC SOUTHWEST PRODUCTS CORP SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC SYSTEMS INC SOUTHWESTERN BUSINESS FORMS CO SOUTHWESTERN RESOURCES LLC SOUTHWESTERN SCALE CO INC SPECIALTY LOADERS LLC STABILIZER SOLUTIONS INC SUN WEST AVIATION INC SUN WEST CONTAINER CO SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT CO LLC SUNSTATE INSTALLATIONS INC SUPERIOR CLEANING EQUIPMENT SUPERIOR SUPPLY INC SUPERSTITION TRAILERS LLC SUPREME OIL CO SWABS AZ INC T F VALDEZ CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY CO INC T L L ELECTRIC INC THERESA ROBERTS INC THOMAS PIPE & SUPPLY CO TRACTOR PARTS & SERVICES TRI COUNTY MATERIALS INC TRUCK WORKS INC TUBE SERVICE CO TUBELITE CO INC TUCSON DODGE TUCSON READY MIX INC TUCSON TRACTOR CO UNION DISTRIBUTING CO VENTURE ENTERPRISES VERMEER SALES SOUTHWEST INC VICTORY STEEL SUPPLY INC W A MORRIS SAND & GRAVEL CO WALSH BROTHERS WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY HISPANIC AMERICAN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY WOMEN NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY COUNTY_ST MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ GRAHAM, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ GILA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ GRAHAM, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ GRAHAM, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ Page B-37 APPENDIX B ID 3602 3603 3606 804 3614 812 3629 813 3636 3637 CLEAN NAME WHITE MOUNTAIN READY MIX LLC WHITE MOUNTAIN ROCK PRODUCTS WILBUR ELLIS CO WILLIAMS GROUP WOODRUFF CONSTRUCTION WRIGHT CHOICE PROMOTIONS XPEDX YALE ELECTRIC WEST INC YORK DISTRIBUTORS YORK MOTORS INC ETHNICITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY NONMINORITY COUNTY_ST NAVAJO, AZ NAVAJO, AZ MARICOPA, AZ PIMA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ MARICOPA, AZ YAVAPAI, AZ Page B-38 APPENDIX C: REGRESSION ANALYSIS APPENDIX C: REGRESSION ANALYSIS Whereas Sections 5.1 and 5.2 reported findings of disparity and nondisparity related to the utilization of vendors in the state of Arizona procurement activities according to selected race, ethnicity, and gender categories, this section reports findings from a telephone survey of a sample of 5241 firms representative of the state of Arizona vendors examined in the study to assess race, ethnicity, and gender effects on vendor revenue during the 2007 tax year. To determine these effects, MGT applied a multivariate regression model to survey findings. There are two key questions for consideration in this analysis. Do minority and womanowned firms tend to earn significantly less revenue than firms owned by nonminority males? If ―yes,‖ are their lower revenues due to race or gender status or to other factors? Case law and social science research provide some guidance for addressing these questions. From research literature, it is known that in addition to race and gender, factors such as firm capacity, owner experience, and education bear a relation to a firm’s gross revenues. When multiple factors come into play, sometimes a multivariate statistical analysis can improve our understanding of more complex relationships among factors affecting company earnings. In this study, MGT employed linear regression to analyze variables, including race and gender, which can affect a firm’s success. C.1 An Overview of Multivariate Regression and Description of Analytical Model Multivariate regression was employed to examine the influence of selected company and business characteristics—especially owner race and gender—on 2007 gross revenues reported by 524 companies participating in a telephone survey administered from May 23 to June 27 2008. For this analysis, gross revenue was the dependent variable, or the variable to be explained by the presence, absence, or strength of ―selected characteristics‖ variables, known as ―independent‖ or ―explanatory‖ variables. Since disparity analysis is an established domain of research, the independent company characteristics variables selected for this study an extensive review of disparity study research literature. Most economic studies of discrimination are based on the seminal work of Nobel Prize recipient Gary Becker, ―The Economics of Discrimination.‖2 Becker was the first to define discrimination in financial and economic terms. Since Becker, labor economists and statistical researchers have adopted a standard in disparity study research of using company earnings, or revenue, as the dependent variable in race and gender discrimination analysis.3 Comparable worth studies have also proposed regression models using gross revenue as the dependent variable for policy analysis,4 1 In order to provide an accurate and complete regression analysis some responses had to be removed. For example if a person surveyed did not answer the revenue or race question, this response was removed. This number reflects those changes. 2 Becker, Gary. 1971, second edition. ―The Economics of Discrimination.‖ The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p. 167. 3 ―Race and Gender Discrimination Across Urban Labor Markets,‖ 1996. Ed. Susan Schmitz. Garland Publishers, New York, New York, p. 184. 4 Gunderson, Morley. 1994. ―Male-Female Wage Differentials and Policy Responses.‖ In ―Equal Employment Opportunity: Labor Market Discrimination and Public Policy,‖ pp.207-227. Page C-1 Appendix C: Regression Analysis and the U.S. Department of Commerce employs regression analysis (included in 48 CFR 19) to establish price evaluation adjustments for small disadvantaged businesses in federal procurement programs.5 The Regression Model Variables Timothy Bates6 used at least five general determinants, including firm capacity, managerial ability, manager/owner experience, and demographic characteristics such as race and gender, to explain statistical variations in firm gross revenues. These are elaborated below in terms of the dependent/independent variable relationship regression seeks to resolve. Dependent Variable For this analysis, the dependent variable (the variable to be explained by the independent variables in the model) was defined operationally as ―firm 2007 gross revenues.‖ Ideally, this variable is measured as the exact dollar figure for gross revenues. However, years of experience in conducting information and opinion surveys with companies have shown us that firms tend to be reluctant to release precise dollar figures, but more responsive when inquiries about earnings are presented as a dollar range. Accordingly, to encourage greater participation in this study’s telephone survey, nine company gross revenue categories were defined, ranging from Category 1, ―Up to $50,000‖ to Category 9, ―More than $10 million.‖ Independent Variables The independent (i.e., explanatory) variables were those characteristics hypothesized as contributing to the variation in the dependent variable (2007 gross revenues). For this study, independent variables included: 5  Number of full-time employees—The more employees a company has, the greater product volume it is likely to have to generate higher revenues.  Owner’s years of experience—The longer a company owner has been in a particular business, the more likely it is that the owner has knowledge of how to acquire contracts and the skills and experience to succeed in that business.  Owner’s level of education—The research literature consistently reports a positive relationship between education and level of income.  Age of company—It is argued that a company’s longevity is an indicator of both success and owner managerial ability.  Race/Ethnic group/gender of firm owners—The proposition to be tested was whether there is a statistically significant relationship between race/ethnicity/gender of minority firm owners and firm revenue. In the analysis, ―Federal Acquisition Regulations for Small Disadvantaged Businesses; Notice and Rules.‖ June 30, 1998. Memorandum for Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Economic and Statistics Administration, Department of Commerce. 6 Bates, Timothy. ―The Declining Status of Minorities in the New York City Construction Industry.‖ Reprinted from Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 12., No. 1, February 1998, pp. 88-100. Page C-2 Appendix C: Regression Analysis the category ―Non-M/WBE‖ served as a reference group against which all other race and gender groups were compared. Finally, since companies tend to be organized around a business concentration (for example, Professional Services, Goods and Supplies, and Other Services), type of business was introduced as a moderator variable to determine if the model, given adequate sample size, behaved differently as a predictor of gross revenue when respondents’ line of business was considered. Participants’ responses to the survey provided the data to examine the relative importance of these factors. The operational relationship between these constructs (i.e., firm capacity, capability, experience, race, and gender) and measures derived from survey items is presented in Exhibit C-1. EXHIBIT C-1 MODEL CONSTRUCTS, VARIABLES, AND MEASURES Model Constructs Capacity Variables Number of Employees Owner's Managerial Ability Private Contracting Owner’s Education Owner’s Experience Company Age Demographics Business Owner Groups Sex of Company Owner Measures Number of Full-time and Part-time Employees Reported % Total Revenue from Private Sources Level of Education (From ―Some High School‖ to ―Postgraduate Degree‖) Years of Experience 2003 Minus Reported ―Year Of Establishment‖ African American, Hispanic American, Asian American, Native American, Nonminority Woman, and Non-M/WBE Firms Sex of Company Majority Owner or Shareholder Source: OOCEA, Telephone Survey Data methodology. Exploring Variable Relationships: How Regression Analysis Works Multiple regression analysis permits simultaneous examination not only of the effects on the dependent variable of all independent variables in the multivariate model, but also the effect of each unique variable (i.e., controlling for the effects of the other independent variables in the equation). The effect of each predictor (independent) variable on the dependent variable is expressed as the magnitude of the change in the dependent variable (Y) for each unit change in the independent variable (X) plus an error term,  Since the independent variable is never a perfect predictor of the dependent variable— that is, X is expressed as an imperfect predictor of Y such that one unit change in X never leads to one unit change in Y— is postulated to acknowledge the residual change in the value of Y that X cannot explain. The goal in sound regression modeling, therefore, is to minimize residual values associated with the independent variables and to maximize their explanatory power. In other words, a good model that seeks to explain what causes revenue earnings, in this case, will hypothesize a combination of independent variables based on solid research findings having sufficient explanatory power to account for case-by-case differences in Page C-3 Appendix C: Regression Analysis company revenue, while minimizing that portion of variation in revenue values that the independent variable cannot explain (i.e., minimizing the difference between Y values predicted by the X’s in the model and actual Y values). C.2 Assessing Variables in the Model As suggested earlier, in a model with multiple independent, or predictor, variables, the effect of each individual independent variable is expressed as the expected change in the dependent variable (Y) for each unit change in the independent variable (X), holding constant, or controlling for, the values of all the other independent variables ( the effect on Y of the other X’s in the equation). When X and Y values are plotted on a graph, linear regression attempts to find a straight line of best fit (also known as the leastsquares line) that minimizes the differences between actual Y and predicted Y values as a function of X. The slope of this line represents the statistical relationship between the predicted values of Y based on X. The point at which this regression line crosses the Y axis (otherwise known as the constant) represents the predicted value of Y when X = 0. If the effect of X on Y is determined to be statistically significant (e.g., a significance level of p < 0.05 asserts that the calculated relationship between X and Y could occur due to chance only 5 times in 100), it can be asserted that X may indeed play a role in determining the value of Y (in the case of this study, company revenues). For example, if the slope coefficient of the variable representing one of the specific racial groups is determined to be statistically significant, then, all other things being equal, the hypothesis that race of the owner of a firm affects the annual revenue of the firm has only a 5 percent chance of being false. In disparity research, theory asserts that the negative effect of race on revenue earnings associated with being a minority-owned business is likely a product of discrimination. Multivariate Regression Model Mathematically, the multivariate linear regression model is expressed as: Y =  0 +  I XI +  2 X2 +  3 X3 +  4 X4 +  5 X5 + … +  Where: Y = annual firm gross revenues 0 = the constant, representing the value of Y when XI = 0 I = coefficient representing the magnitude of XI’s effect on Y XI =the independent variables, such as capacity, experience, managerial ability, race, and gender.  = the error term, representing the variance in Y unexplained by Xl This equation describes the hypothesized relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variables and was used to test the hypothesis that there is no difference in 2007 revenue earnings for MBE firms when compared with non-M/WBE firms. Traditionally, the hypothesis of no difference (known as the null hypothesis) is represented as: H0 : Y1 = Y2 We can reject the null hypothesis if the analysis indicates that race and gender have been found to affect firm revenue (i.e., H1 : Y1  Y2, the alternate hypothesis). Results are statistically significant if it is determined that the probability of achieving this difference due to chance was less than 5 in 100 (i.e., p < .05). Page C-4 Appendix C: Regression Analysis Multivariate Regression Model Results The regression model tested the effects of selected demographic and business characteristic variables on revenue earnings elicited from firms participating in the study, according to the following categories:7 1 = Up to $50,000 2 = $50,001 to $100,000 3 = $100,001 to $300,000 4 = $300,001 to $500,000 5 = $500,001 to $1 million 6 = $1,000,001 to $3 million 7 = $3,000,001 to $5,000,000 8 = $5,000,001 to $10 million 9 = Over $10 million The tests for multicollinearity among independent variables and variance inflation due to outlier observations revealed no substantive problems with the data.8 Initial analyses also determined that one independent variable, Percentage of Business in the Private Sector, made no substantive contribution to the model, and was, therefore, removed. These adjustments yielded values for the variables listed in Exhibit C-2. 7 Despite the ordinal nature of the dependent variable, findings are reported based on a linear regression analysis; specifically, OLS. Menard (1995) notes this as an acceptable and common practice, ―particularly when the dependent variable has five or more [ordered] categories. Since this [OLS] is probably the easiest approach for readers to understand, sometimes other approaches are tried, just to confirm that the use of OLS does not…distort the findings.‖ In this case, the nine categories of revenue were also analyzed using ordered Logit (SPSS 11.5), with nearly identical findings to those achieved with OLS with respect to magnitude of effect of the independent variables and both sign and significance. For further discussion, see Menard, S., ―Applied logistic regression analysis,‖ (Sage university papers series. Quantitative applications in the social sciences; no. 07-106), Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1995. 8 Multicollinearity refers to excessive intercorrelation among the independent variables in a multiple regression model, which obscures the effect of each on the dependent variable to the extent that they behave as one variable and may measure two highly correlated components of the same theoretical factor. Outliers are observations in a data set that are substantially different from the bulk of the data, perhaps because of a data entry error or some other cause that would reasonable explain a data anomaly. Page C-5 Appendix C: Regression Analysis EXHIBIT C-2 THE STATE OF ARIZONA TELEPHONE SURVEY DATA RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS Coefficients (Constant) African Americans (n=51) Hispanic Americans (n=106) Asian Americans (n=29) Native Americans (n=24) Nonminority Females (n=155) Company Age Number of Employees High School Some College College Degree Owner’s Years of Experience Special Trade Professional Services General/Personal Services Supplies and Equipment Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 5.322 0.537 -1.485 0.423 -0.923 0.349 -0.862 0.472 -0.826 0.522 -1.387 0.296 0.051 0.009 0.001 0.000 0.010 0.507 -0.214 0.326 -0.200 0.255 0.008 0.012 -0.027 0.420 -0.768 0.321 -0.897 0.412 -0.220 0.469 Standardized Coefficients Beta -0.197 -0.168 -0.093 -0.079 -0.282 0.301 0.154 0.001 -0.037 -0.043 0.031 -0.004 -0.168 -0.126 -0.026 Source: The state of Arizona telephone survey. Bold type indicates statistically significant results (p < .05). Results  The model testing the effects of the variables listed in Exhibit 5-14 on revenue reported by companies participating in the telephone survey explained 19.0 percent of the variance of the revenue variable (R2j = 0.285, F = 9.056, df = 15,341, p  .000).  When controlling for the effects of variables related to company demographics (i.e,, company capacity, ownership level of education and experience), M/WBE status had a negative effect on 2007 company earnings of all minority groups.  Among the company characteristics variables, other than M/WBE status revenue for all groups increased as a function of owner’s experience and number of employees.  Industry type of firm ownership had no significant impact on company revenues, except in professional services and general/personal services. Deriving Predicted Revenue for Race/Gender/Ethnicity Categories To derive predicted revenue categories for each race/ethnicity/gender group, values from C-2 were inserted into the regression model. The following equation illustrates how Page C-6 Appendix C: Regression Analysis predicted revenue would be calculated for an African American in the Professional Services business category9 Gross Revenues = 5.322 – 1.485 African American + 0.051 Company Age + 0.001 Number of Employees + 0.010 High School - 0.0214 Some College - 0.200 College Degree + 0.008 Owner’s Experience – 0.768 Professional Services. For instance, using Exhibit C-3 below to interpret the effect or race/ethnicity/gender on predicted gross revenue for an African American in the Professional Services, holding all other variables constant, we would add the value of the constant (5.322) to the coefficient value for an African American (–1.485) and the Professional Services business category (-0.768) to obtain a predicted revenue value of 3.070 (rounded to 3, representing the category ―$100,001 to $300,000‖). Similarly, to derive the effect or race/ethnicity/gender on predicted gross revenue for an African American in the Supplies and Equipment Services, holding all other variables constant, we would simply note the value of the constant (3.617, rounded to 4, representing the category ―$300,001 to $500,000‖). EXHIBIT C-3 GROSS REVENUE CATEGORIES FROM TELEPHONE SURVEY Race/Ethnicity/Gender Nonminority Males (n=127) African Americans (n=51) Hispanic Americans (n=106) Asian Americans (n=29) Native Americans (n=24) Nonminority Females (n=155) Building Overall Construction Special Trade 4 5 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 Gross Revenue Categories: 1 = Up to $50,000 4 = $300,001 to $500,000 2 = $50,001 to $100,000 5 = $500,001 to $1 million 3 = $100,001 to $300,000 6 = $1,000,001 to $3 million Professional Services 5 3 4 4 4 3 General/Personal Services 4 3 4 4 4 3 Supplies and Equipment 5 4 4 4 4 4 7 = $3,000,001 to $5 million 8 = $5,000,001 to $10 million 9 = Over $10 million Summary of Survey Findings With regard to the positive significant effects of the non-race/ethnicity/gender variables-company age and number of employees—it would be expected that a firm’s revenue might be positively related to its size and age, supporting the logical conclusion that larger, more established firms tend to do more business. However, even when these impacts were considered, M/WBE firms responding to the telephone survey earned significantly less revenue in 2007 than did their non-M/WBE counterparts, supporting the conclusion that M/WBE status is negatively related to earnings when compared with earnings for non-M/WBEs. 9 To derive coefficients for the race, ethnicity, and gender categories, the ―Non-M/WBE‖ category was used as the reference variable, coded as value ―0.‖ Page C-7 APPENDIX D: PUMS REGRESSION ANALYSIS APPENDIX D STATE OF ARIZONA PUMS REGRESSION ANALYSIS EXHIBIT D-a RESULTS OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION EXPLANATION OF RESULTS AND VARIABLES Logistic Regression Output Below, variable names and operational defenitions are provided. When interpreting Exhibits D-1 to D-5, the third column— Exp (B) — is the most informative index with regard to the influence of the independent variables on the likelihood of being self-employed. From the inverse of this value, we can interpret a likelihood value of its effect on self-employment. For example the Exp (B) for an African American is .405, from Exhibit D-1, the inverse of this is 2.47. This means that a nonminority male is 2.47 times more likely to be self-employed than an African American. Columns A and B are reported as a matter of convention to give the reader another indicator of both the magnitude of the variable’s effect and the direction of the effect (“-“ suggests the greater the negative B value the more it depresses the likelihood of being self-employed, and vice versa for a positive B value. It is noteworthy that theoretically “raceneutral” variables (e.g., marital status) tend to impact the likelihood of self-employment positively and that the race/ethnicity/gender variables, in general, tend to have a negative effect on self-employment. Variables Race, ethnicity, and gender indicator variables: African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Sex: Nonminority woman or not Other indicator variables: Marital Status: Married or not Age 2 Age : age squared. Used to acknowledge the positive, curvilinear relationship between each year of age and self-employment. Disability: Individuals self-reported health-related disabilites. Tenure: Owns their own home Value: Household property value. Mortgage: Monthly total mortgage payments. Unearn: Unearned income, such as interests and dividends. Resdinc: Household income less individuals personal income. P65: Number of individuals over the age of 65 living in the household. P18: Number of children under the age of 18 living in the household. Some College: Some college education College Graduate: College degree More than College: Professional or graduate degree Page D-1 Appendix D: PUMS Regression Analysis EXHIBIT D-1 RESULTS OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION OVERALL State of Arizona African American Hispanic American Asian American Native American Sex (1=Female) Marital Status (1=Married) Age 2 Age Disability (1=Yes) Tenure (1=Yes) Value Mortgage Unearn Resdinc P65 P18 Some College (1=Yes) College Graduate (1=Yes) More than College (1=Yes) Number of Observations Chi-squared statistic (df=19) Log Likelihood B -0.905 -0.755 -0.293 -1.263 -0.836 0.088 0.105 Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 Exp (B) 0.405 0.470 0.746 0.283 0.434 1.092 1.111 -0.001 0.010 0.294 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.112 0.062 0.006 -0.052 0.136 0.000 0.794 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.246 0.019 0.000 0.863 0.200 0.003 0.999 1.010 1.342 1.038 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.894 1.064 1.006 0.950 1.146 62822 3170.498 -40214.6 Note: BOLD Statistically significant at p < .05. Estimation was conducted using the Binary Logistic command on SPSS. The Binary Logistic command performs binary logistic regressions and reports estimated coefficients and odds ratios that measure the effect on the probability of each one-unit increase in the included variables. Source: The Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) data from 2000 Census of Population and MGT of America, Inc. Calculations using SPSS. Page D-2 Appendix D: PUMS Regression Analysis EXHIBIT D-2 RESULTS OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION CONSTRUCTION State of Arizona African American Hispanic American Asian American Native American Sex (1=Female) Marital Status (1=Married) Age 2 Age Disability (1=Yes) Tenure (1=Yes) Value Mortgage Unearn Resdinc P65 P18 Some College (1=Yes) College Graduate (1=Yes) More than College (1=Yes) Number of Observations Chi-squared statistic (df=19) Log Likelihood B -0.668 -0.779 -0.586 -1.144 -0.640 0.209 0.151 Sig. 0.021 0.000 0.139 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 Exp (B) 0.512 0.459 0.557 0.318 0.527 1.233 1.163 -0.001 -0.092 0.294 0.043 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.145 0.046 0.175 -0.025 0.251 0.000 0.252 0.005 0.000 0.276 0.911 0.853 0.243 0.055 0.010 0.802 0.108 0.999 0.912 1.342 1.044 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.865 1.047 1.191 0.975 1.285 8904 701.0326 -7329 Note: BOLD Statistically significant at p < .05. Estimation was conducted using the Binary Logistic command on SPSS. The Binary Logistic command performs binary logistic regressions and reports estimated coefficients and odds ratios that measure the effect on the probability of each one-unit increase in the included variables. Source: The Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) data from 2000 Census of Population and MGT of America, Inc. Calculations using SPSS. Page D-3 Appendix D: PUMS Regression Analysis EXHIBIT D-3 RESULTS OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES State of Arizona African American Hispanic American Asian American Native American Sex (1=Female) Marital Status (1=Married) Age 2 Age Disability (1=Yes) Tenure (1=Yes) Value Mortgage Unearn Resdinc P65 P18 Some College (1=Yes) College Graduate (1=Yes) More than College (1=Yes) Number of Observations Chi-squared statistic (df=19) Log Likelihood B -1.329 -1.407 -0.799 -1.852 -1.519 -0.189 0.088 Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.003 Exp (B) 0.265 0.245 0.450 0.157 0.219 0.828 1.092 -0.001 0.057 0.396 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.101 0.222 0.537 1.180 0.054 0.567 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.294 0.153 0.890 0.000 0.078 0.000 0.000 0.999 1.058 1.486 1.031 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.015 1.106 1.248 1.711 3.256 18656 1665.91 -7983.46 Note: BOLD Statistically significant at p < .05. Estimation was conducted using the Binary Logistic command on SPSS. The Binary Logistic command performs binary logistic regressions and reports estimated coefficients and odds ratios that measure the effect on the probability of each one-unit increase in the included variables. Source: The Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) data from 2000 Census of Population and MGT of America, Inc. Calculations using SPSS. Page D-4 Appendix D: PUMS Regression Analysis EXHIBIT D-4 RESULTS OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION OTHER SERVICES State of Arizona African American Hispanic American Asian American Native American Sex (1=Female) Marital Status (1=Married) Age 2 Age Disability (1=Yes) Tenure (1=Yes) Value Mortgage Unearn Resdinc P65 P18 Some College (1=Yes) College Graduate (1=Yes) More than College (1=Yes) Number of Observations Chi-squared statistic (df=19) Log Likelihood B -0.514 -0.425 0.074 -1.071 -0.183 0.159 0.104 Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.548 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 Exp (B) 0.598 0.654 1.077 0.343 0.832 1.173 1.110 -0.001 0.012 0.094 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.112 0.045 0.092 0.040 -0.270 0.000 0.825 0.223 0.000 0.056 0.141 0.579 0.115 0.012 0.060 0.526 0.001 0.999 1.012 1.099 1.049 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.894 1.046 1.097 1.040 0.763 21114 1043.439 -16119.1 Note: BOLD Statistically significant at p < .05. Estimation was conducted using the Binary Logistic command on SPSS. The Binary Logistic command performs binary logistic regressions and reports estimated coefficients and odds ratios that measure the effect on the probability of each one-unit increase in the included variables. Source: The Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) data from 2000 Census of Population and MGT of America, Inc. Calculations using SPSS. Page D-5 Appendix D: PUMS Regression Analysis EXHIBIT D-5 RESULTS OF LOGISTIC REGRESSION GOODS AND SUPPLIES State of Arizona African American Hispanic American Asian American Native American Sex (1=Female) Marital Status (1=Married) Age 2 Age Disability (1=Yes) Tenure (1=Yes) Value Mortgage Unearn Resdinc P65 P18 Some College (1=Yes) College Graduate (1=Yes) More than College (1=Yes) Number of Observations Chi-squared statistic (df=19) Log Likelihood B -0.835 -0.534 -0.022 -0.498 -0.390 0.090 0.082 Sig. 0.005 0.000 0.918 0.078 0.000 0.257 0.004 Exp (B) 0.434 0.586 0.978 0.608 0.677 1.094 1.086 -0.001 -0.013 0.444 0.043 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.193 0.023 0.177 0.407 0.396 0.104 0.892 0.000 0.000 0.058 0.057 0.081 0.108 0.448 0.026 0.000 0.008 0.999 0.987 1.559 1.044 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.824 1.024 1.194 1.502 1.486 14148 536.6585 -7060.61 Note: BOLD Statistically significant at p < .05. Estimation was conducted using the Binary Logistic command on SPSS. The Binary Logistic command performs binary logistic regressions and reports estimated coefficients and odds ratios that measure the effect on the probability of each one-unit increase in the included variables. Source: The Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) data from 2000 Census of Population and MGT of America, Inc. Calculations using SPSS. Page D-6 Appendix D: PUMS Regression Analysis EXHIBIT D-b RESULTS OF LINEAR REGRESSION EXPLANATION OF RESULTS AND VARIABLES Linear Regression Output Below, variable names and operational definitions are provided. When interpreting the linear regression Exhibits D-6 to D-10, the first column— Unstandardized B — is the most informative index with regard to the influence of the independent variables on the earnings of a self-employed individual. Each number in this column represents a percent change in earnings. For example the corresponding number for an African American is -.413, from Exhibit D-6, meaning that an African American will earn 41.3 percent less than a nonminority male. The other four columns are reported in order to give the reader another indicator of both the magnitude of the variable’s effect and the direction of the effect. Std. Error reports the standard deviation in the sampling distribution. Standardized B reports the standard deviation change in the dependent variable from on standard deviation increase in the independent variable. The t and Sig. columns simply report the level and strength of a variable’s significance. Variables Race, ethnicity and gender indicator variables: African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American Nonminority Woman Other indicator variables: Marital Status: Married or not Disability: Individuals self-reported health-related disabilites. Age 2 Age : age squared. Used to acknowledge the positive, curvilinear relationship between each year of age and self-employment. Speaks English Well: Person’s ability to speak english if not a native speaker. Some College: Some college education College Graduate: College degree More than College: Professional or graduate degree Page D-7 Appendix D: PUMS Regression Analysis EXHIBIT D-6 RESULTS OF LINEAR REGRESSION OVERALL State of Arizona African American Hispanic American Asian American Native American Nonminority W omen (1=Female) Marital Status (1=Married) Disability (1=Yes) Age 2 Age Speaks English W ell (1=Yes) Some College (1=Yes) College Graduate (1=Yes) More than College (1=Yes) Unstandardized B Std. Error -0.413 0.084 -0.356 0.038 -0.250 0.070 -0.456 0.085 Standardized B -0.055 -0.128 -0.041 -0.060 t -4.946 -9.351 -3.548 -5.342 Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.358 0.025 -0.165 -14.344 0.000 0.179 -0.071 0.060 0.023 0.029 0.009 0.087 -0.028 0.628 7.741 -2.450 6.520 0.000 0.014 0.000 -0.001 0.000 -0.604 -6.283 0.000 -0.038 0.164 0.034 0.026 -0.015 0.085 -1.129 6.424 0.259 0.000 0.444 0.030 0.191 14.738 0.000 0.779 0.033 0.302 23.740 0.000 Constant 8.944 0.200 44.693 0.000 Note: BOLD Statistically significant at p < .05. Source: The Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) data from 2000 Census of Population and MGT of America, Inc. Calculations using SPSS. Page D-8 Appendix D: PUMS Regression Analysis EXHIBIT D-7 RESULTS OF LINEAR REGRESSION CONSTRUCTION State of Arizona African American Hispanic American Asian American Native American Nonminority W omen (1=Female) Marital Status (1=Married) Disability (1=Yes) Age 2 Age Speaks English W ell (1=Yes) Some College (1=Yes) College Graduate (1=Yes) More than College (1=Yes) Unstandardized B Std. Error -0.529 0.211 -0.161 0.072 -0.115 0.283 -0.165 0.149 Standardized B -0.063 -0.071 -0.010 -0.028 t -2.503 -2.243 -0.407 -1.107 Sig. 0.012 0.025 0.684 0.268 -0.219 0.078 -0.071 -2.805 0.005 0.174 -0.154 0.043 0.048 0.057 0.018 0.091 -0.069 0.488 3.600 -2.716 2.329 0.000 0.007 0.020 0.000 0.000 -0.434 -2.072 0.038 -0.068 0.103 0.072 0.046 -0.029 0.062 -0.936 2.251 0.349 0.025 0.401 0.065 0.166 6.145 0.000 0.472 0.100 0.124 4.732 0.000 Constant 9.281 0.404 22.964 0.000 Note: BOLD Statistically significant at p < .05. Source: The Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) data from 2000 Census of Population and MGT of America, Inc. Calculations using SPSS. Page D-9 Appendix D: PUMS Regression Analysis EXHIBIT D-8 RESULTS OF LINEAR REGRESSION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES State of Arizona African American Hispanic American Native American Asian American Nonminority W omen (1=Female) Marital Status (1=Married) Disability (1=Yes) Age 2 Age Speaks English W ell (1=Yes) Some College (1=Yes) College Graduate (1=Yes) More than College (1=Yes) Unstandardized B Std. Error -0.564 0.200 -0.341 0.121 0.174 0.161 -0.312 0.241 Standardized B -0.070 -0.079 0.028 -0.032 t -2.813 -2.812 1.080 -1.294 Sig. 0.005 0.005 0.280 0.196 -0.478 0.059 -0.210 -8.140 0.000 0.255 -0.126 0.118 0.056 0.081 0.023 0.114 -0.039 1.111 4.521 -1.553 5.038 0.000 0.121 0.000 -0.001 0.000 -1.099 -4.992 0.000 -0.040 0.121 0.087 0.106 -0.013 0.048 -0.467 1.141 0.640 0.254 0.441 0.104 0.195 4.234 0.000 0.743 0.099 0.378 7.479 0.000 Constant 7.846 0.526 14.914 0.000 Note: BOLD Statistically significant at p < .05. Source: The Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) data from 2000 Census of Population and MGT of America, Inc. Calculations using SPSS. Page D-10 Appendix D: PUMS Regression Analysis EXHIBIT D-9 RESULTS OF LINEAR REGRESSION OTHER SERVICES State of Arizona African American Hispanic American Asian American Native American Nonminority W omen (1=Female) Marital Status (1=Married) Disability (1=Yes) Age 2 Age Speaks English W ell (1=Yes) Some College (1=Yes) College Graduate (1=Yes) More than College (1=Yes) Unstandardized B Std. Error -0.287 0.110 -0.410 0.055 -0.353 0.093 -0.672 0.127 Standardized B -0.046 -0.167 -0.070 -0.094 t -2.606 -7.480 -3.792 -5.300 Sig. 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.298 0.035 -0.157 -8.502 0.000 0.131 0.006 0.053 0.033 0.041 0.013 0.069 0.003 0.609 3.912 0.150 4.004 0.000 0.881 0.000 -0.001 0.000 -0.580 -3.820 0.000 -0.040 0.197 0.050 0.036 -0.017 0.111 -0.811 5.487 0.417 0.000 0.412 0.044 0.184 9.266 0.000 0.386 0.061 0.119 6.336 0.000 Constant 9.027 0.288 31.378 0.000 Note: BOLD Statistically significant at p < .05. Source: The Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) data from 2000 Census of Population and MGT of America, Inc. Calculations using SPSS. Page D-11 Appendix D: PUMS Regression Analysis EXHIBIT D-10 RESULTS OF LINEAR REGRESSION GOODS AND SUPPLIES State of Arizona African American Hispanic American Asian American Native American Nonminority W omen (1=Female) Marital Status (1=Married) Disability (1=Yes) Age 2 Age Speaks English W ell (1=Yes) Some College (1=Yes) College Graduate (1=Yes) More than College (1=Yes) Unstandardized B Std. Error -0.456 0.246 -0.413 0.094 -0.467 0.173 -0.439 0.228 Standardized B -0.055 -0.150 -0.083 -0.057 t -1.858 -4.398 -2.700 -1.927 Sig. 0.063 0.000 0.007 0.054 -0.386 0.062 -0.190 -6.273 0.000 0.147 -0.078 0.015 0.059 0.074 0.023 0.075 -0.032 0.168 2.503 -1.053 0.636 0.012 0.292 0.525 0.000 0.000 -0.155 -0.589 0.556 0.033 0.110 0.080 0.063 0.013 0.062 0.411 1.767 0.682 0.078 0.277 0.073 0.134 3.820 0.000 0.450 0.112 0.126 4.012 0.000 Constant 10.039 0.515 19.498 0.000 Note: BOLD Statistically significant at p < .05. Source: The Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) data from 2000 Census of Population and MGT of America, Inc. Calculations using SPSS. Page D-12 APPENDIX E: TELEPHONE SURVEY OF AREA BUSINESSES APPENDIX E TELEPHONE SURVEY OF AREA BUSINESSES FOR THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISPARITY STUDY INTERVIEW STATS Interviewer ID _______ Date of Interview _____________________ Time Started _________ Time Ended ____________ Name of Contact __________________________ Owner ______ Manager ______ Other ______ INTRODUCTION/SCREENER Hello. My name is ____________________ from ___________, an opinion research firm based in _________. We are conducting a survey to determine the business climate in the State of Arizona’ Department of Transportation. Is this _________________ (Company’s name)? IF YES, CONTINUE. IF NO, THANK AND HANG UP. May I speak with the owner please? IF OWNER IS PUT ON THE LINE: CONTINUE WITH INTRODUCTION IF TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER PARTY: DETERMINE IF PARTY CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS CONCERNING OWNERSHIP. IF SO, CONTINUE WITH INTRODUCTION. IF NOT, MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO CALL BACK WHEN THE OWNER MAY BE AVAILABLE AND LEAVE TELEPHONE NUMBER. IF NOBODY IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS: SCHEDULE CALL BACK DATE AND TIME We have been asked by ADOT to contact area businesses to get their opinions about the business climate in Arizona. Your company’s name and phone number has been provided to us by ADOT, and through our research, to help ADOT learn more about local businesses so they can better respond to local business needs Your responses will be kept confidential and tabulated in combination with the results of other businesses. I wonder if I might ask you a few questions. It will only take 5 to 10 minutes. IF NO: SCHEDULE CALLBACK APPOINTMENT IF POSSIBLE IF YES: THANK THEM FOR THEIR TIME AND BEGIN WITH Q1 CALL BACK AT: __________________AM/PM DATE: __________________________ Page E-1 Appendix E: Telephone Survey of Area Businesses BEGIN QUESTIONS BUSINESS PROFILE Q1. Which ONE of the following is your company’s primary line of business? READ LIST 1 2 3 4 5  -9 Construction (general contractor) – Specify ____________________________________ Special Trade Contractor (electrical, painting, heavy construction, etc.) – Specify ____________________________________ Professional Services – Specify ____________________________________ General/Personal Services (security, training, maintenance, etc.) – Specify ____________________________________ Supplies and Equipment (small procurement items) Specify ____________________________________ No Response Q2. In what year was your company established? ________ If DK, Code as 9999 Q3. Excluding yourself (if owner), on average, how many employees does your company keep on the payroll, including full-time and part-time staff? If DK, Code as 999999 6 digits _____ Number of Employees Q4 Excluding yourself (if owner), on average, how many minority employees does your company keep on the payroll, including full-time and part-time staff? If DK, Code as 999999 6 digits _____ Number of Employees Q5. Is more than 51 percent of your company owned and controlled by a woman or women? _____1 Yes Q6. _____ 2No _____-9 No Response Which of the following categories would you consider to be the race or ethnic origin of the owner or controlling party? Would you say: NOTE: IF RESPONDENT HAS A BI-RACIAL OR MULTI-RACIAL BACKGROUND, HAVE THEM IDENTIFY THE CATEGORY TO WHICH THEY MOST CLOSELY IDENTIFY. READ LIST  0 Caucasian  1 African American  2Asian or Pacific Islander  3 Hispanic American  4 Native American/Alaskan Native  -9 No Response Page E-2 Appendix E: Telephone Survey of Area Businesses Q7. What is the highest level of education completed by the owner of your company? Would you say: READ LIST 1 Some high school 2 High school graduate 3 Trade or technical education Q8. 4 Some college 5 College degree 6 Post graduate degree -9 No response How many years of experience in your company’s business line does the primary owner of your firm have? 2 digits 99 For DK ________ Years Q9. Which of the following categories best approximates your company’s gross revenues for calendar year 2006? READ LIST  1 Up to $50,000? 2  $50,001 to $100,000? 3  $100,001 to $300,000? 4  $300,001 to $500,000? Q10. 5 10  $500,001 to $1,000,000?  Over $10 million? 6 9  $1,000,001 to $3,000,000?  No Response 7  $3,000,001 to $5,000,000? 8  $5,000,001 to $10,000,000? Are you required to have bonding for the type of work your company bids?  Yes Q10a.  No, Skip to Q11  DK, Skip to Q11 What is your current aggregate bonding limit? ( ) Below $100,000 ( ) $100,001 to $500,000 ( ) $500,001 to $1,000,000 ( ) $1,000,001 to $1,500,000 ( ) Over $1,500,000 ( ) Not Applicable ( ) None Q10b. What is your current single project bonding limit? ( ) Below $100,000 ( ) $100,001 to $500,000 ( ) $500,001 to $1,000,000 ( ) $1,000,001 to $1,500,000 ( ) Over $1,500,000 ( ) Not Applicable ( ) None Page E-3 Appendix E: Telephone Survey of Area Businesses CONDUCTING BUSINESS AS A PRIME CONTRACTOR OR VENDOR Q11. Since July 1, 2002, how many times has your company, submitted bids or proposals for construction work as a prime to the ADOT? ___________ Q12. Since July 1, 2002 have you had any contracts with ADOT as a prime contractor?  Yes  No, Skip to 12a  9 DK, Skip to 12a Q12a. Does your company bid or perform as a subcontractor in either the public sector or private sector?  Yes  No, Skip to 13  9 DK, Skip to 13 Q13. Since July 1, 2002, how many times in the public sector (government) and private sector has your company: READ LIST __________ (# of times) bid as a businesses regularly bid with other public agencies, but not with ADOT and if so, Why? __________ (# of times) asked to be a subcontractor by a prime contractor or prime consultant? __________ (# of times) hired as a subcontractor by a prime? Q14. Since July 1, 2002, has your company used a sub contractor or subconsultant on a projects in the public (governments, schools, etc.) or private sector? 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Response IF “NO,” SKIP TO Q17. OTHERWISE, PROCEED TO Q15. Q15. How frequently do you use minority or women-owned subcontractors or subconsultants on the following types of projects? Would you say you use them very often, sometimes, seldom, or never? 1 Very Often a. State of Arizona DOT projects b. Private projects   3 Sometimes   5 Seldom   7 Never   9 No Response   IF NEVER, SKIP TO Q17. Page E-4 Appendix E: Telephone Survey of Area Businesses Q16. Since July 1, 2002, on average, how would you rate your experience with subcontractor firms owned by minority men or women, non-minority women, non-minority men? Would you rate them excellent, good, fair, or poor? 1 a. Minority men and women b. White women c. White men  Excellent  Excellent  Excellent 3 5  Good  Good  Good  Fair  Fair  Fair 7 -9  Poor  Poor  Poor  No Response  No Response  No Response Q17. What is the amount of time that it typically takes to receive payment for your services on: 2 questions 17a. ADOT Projects 17b. Private Projects Less than 30 days Less than 30 days 30 - 60 days 30 - 60 days 60 - 90 days 60 - 90 days 90 - 120 days 90 - 120 days Over 120 days Over 120 days CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITH ADOT AS A SUBCONTRACTOR Q18. Are you a registered subcontractor with ADOT?  Yes  No, Skip to 21  DK, Skip to 21 Q19. Have you ever served as a subcontractor on an ADOT project?  Yes  No, Skip to 21  DK, Skip to 21 Q20. How often have you served as a subcontractor on an ADOT project? 1-10 ____ 11-25 ___ 26-50 ___ 51-100 ___ Over 100 ____ Q21. Have you ever been informed that you were the low bidder for ADOT project or services, were awarded a contract, and then found out that another subcontractor or the prime was performing the work? Yes ____ No ____ 21a. If yes, can you explain the circumstances of the situation?_______________ _____________________________________________________________ 21b. What action did you take?________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Page E-5 Appendix E: Telephone Survey of Area Businesses Q22. Do you think prime contractors show any favoritism toward particular subcontractors when it comes to procuring services and products for ADOT projects? Yes ____ No ____ 22a. If yes, can you explain how they show favoritism?____________________ ____________________________________________________________ Q23. Has your firm performed subcontracts with the same prime contractor on both federally funded ADOT projects and state funded ADOT projects? Yes ____ No ____ Q23a Has your firm performed subcontracts with the same prime on both federally funded ADOT projects and private sector commercial projects? Yes ____ No ____ Q24. If you have been a subcontractor any time since July 1, 2002, how would you rate your experience with the prime contractor(s)? READ CHOICES 1  Excellent 3  Good 5  Fair 7  Poor -9  No Response/Don’t Know Q25. I will now read you a list of business practices that sometimes occur while serving as a subcontractor. Please indicate which if any of these practices you have encountered with a prime since July 1, 2002. READ LIST 1 Yes 2No                         -9 No Response  Provided a bid and/or quote, but the prime contractor and/or consultant never responded  Was asked to be a front for a non-minority firm  Pressured to lower quote on a bid  Was paid less than the negotiated amount in the contract  Dropped from the project after prime was awarded the contract  Completed the job and payment was substantially delayed  Completed the job and never received payment  Did different and less work than specified in the contract  Was held to higher standards than other subs on the job  Was not paid as specified in the contract or payment schedule  Untimely release of retainage  Other Experiences:_______________________________________ Page E-6 Appendix E: Telephone Survey of Area Businesses ALL: Q26. I will now read you a list of things that may prevent companies from bidding or obtaining work on a project. In your experience, have any of the following items been a barrier to obtaining work on ADOT projects ? READ LIST 1 Have: Yes 2 -9 No No Response a. Pre-qualification requirements?    b. Performance bond requirements?    d. Financing    e. Insurance requirements?    f.    g. Limited time given to prepare bid package or quote?    h. Limited information received on pending projects?    i. Limited knowledge of purchasing/contracting policies and procedures?    j. Lack of experience?    k. Lack of personnel?    l. Contract too large?    m. Contract too expensive to bid?    c. Q27. Bid bond requirements? Bid specifications too rigid? Is your company listed as a DBE (disadvantaged) business with The State of Arizona? 1 _____ Yes 2 ______ No -9 _____ No Response/Don’t Know Q 27a. Page E-7 Appendix E: Telephone Survey of Area Businesses EXPERIENCE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR Q28. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following question: “There is an informal network of prime and subcontractors that has excluded my company from doing business on State of Arizona private sector commercial projects.” _____ _____ _____ 1 Strongly Agree Agree 3 Neither Agree or Disagree _____ _____ _____ 2 4 Disagree Strongly Disagree 9 No Answer/Don’t Know 5 FINANCING Q30. How many times have you applied for a commercial bank loan over the past three years? ______________ If never, skip to Q27. Q31. How many times have you been denied a commercial bank loan over the past three years? ______________________ Q32. Since July 1, 2002, has your company applied, been approved, or denied for any of the following items? READ LIST. FOR EACH ITEM WHERE RESPONDENT DID APPLY, ASK IF THEY WERE APPROVED OR DENIED. IF THE INTERVIEWEE WAS DENIED FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS CIRCLE THEIR REASON FOR DENIAL WHETHER IT WAS:  INSUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION (ID),  INSUFFICIENT BUSINESS HISTORY (IBH),  CONFUSION ABOUT PROCESS (C),  RACE OR ETHNIC ORIGIN (RE),  GENDER OF OWNER (G),  OTHER, (O) AND PLEASE SPECIFY IN THE LAST COLUMN,  OR NO RESPONSE (NR). Did you apply for: Applied Yes a. b. c. d. e. f. Business start-up loan? Operating capital loan? Performance bond? Bid bond? Equipment loan? Commercial liability insurance? g. Professional liability insurance? 1 No Approved or Denied 2 Approved 1 2 Denied 0 N/A Why do you feel your company was denied? (see descriptions above and circle each response) ID IBH C RE G O NR ID IBH C RE G O NR ID IBH C RE G O NR ID IBH C RE G O NR ID IBH C RE G O NR ID IBH C RE G O NR ID IBH C RE G O NR ID IBH C RE G O NR Page E-8 Appendix E: Telephone Survey of Area Businesses MINORITY AND WOMAN-OWNED BUSINESSES 33. For the following statement, please indicate the extent to which you agree. From July 1, 2002 to the present, our company experienced discrimination due to the race, ethnicity, or gender of your company’s owner(s)? READ LIST 1 3 2 4  Yes, very often  Yes, sometimes -9  No Response/Don’t Know  Yes, but seldom  Never IF RESPONDENT ANSWERED NEVER OR NO RESPONSE/DON’T KNOW SKIP TO Q35. ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTION TO THOSE WHO ANSWERED YES TO Q33. 34. If you feel your company has experienced specific instances of discrimination by the ADOT since July 1, 2002, what type of occurrence was it? Was it due to the owner’s (meaning you) race, sex, or time in business? Did the discrimination occur before or after contract award? NOTE: IF THEY ANSWERED “NEVER” or “NO RESPONSE” TO Q33 THEN PUT -9 IN ALL BOXES. USE BOX BELOW TO GUIDE INTERVIEW SEQUENCE Basis for Discrimination List Occurrence: e.g., “verbal comment,” “written statement,” or “actions taken against us” 1 a.  verbal 3  written 5  actions 1 b.  verbal 3  written 5  actions c.  verbal 3  written 5  actions d.  verbal 3  written 5  actions e.  verbal 3  written 5  actions f.  verbal 3  written 5  actions 1 1 1 1 Owner’s Race or Ethnicity                   1 Yes No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 2                   When Instance Occurred Owner’s Sex Time in Business 1                   Yes No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 2 1 Yes No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 2 Before-Contract Award                   1 Yes No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 2 After Contract Award                   Page E-9 1 Yes No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 1 Yes 2 No -9 No Answer 2 Appendix E: Telephone Survey of Area Businesses For the following questions, please indicate whether you Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree. Q35. There is an informal network of prime and subcontractors in Arizona. _____ _____ _____ 1 Strongly Agree Agree 3 Neither Agree Nor Disagree 2 _____ _____ _____ 4 Disagree Strongly Disagree -9 No Answer/Don’t Know 5 Q36. Exclusion from this network has kept my company from bidding or has interfered with our ability to contract in the public (government) or private sector. _____ _____ _____ 1 Strongly Agree Agree 3 Neither Agree Nor Disagree 2 _____ _____ _____ 4 Disagree Strongly Disagree -9 No Answer/Don’t Know 5 Q37. Although exclusion from this informal network adversely affects a majority of small businesses, the adverse impact is probably felt the greatest among women and minority -owned businesses. _____ 1 Strongly Agree _____ 4 Disagree 2 _____ Agree _____ 5 Strongly Disagree 3 _____ Neither Agree Nor Disagree _____ -9 No Answer/Don’t Know Q38. Double standards in qualifications and performance make it more difficult for minority and women-owned businesses to win bids and contracts. _____ 1 Strongly Agree _____ 4 Disagree 2 _____ Agree _____ 5 Strongly Disagree 3 _____ Neither Agree Nor Disagree _____ -9 No Answer/Don’t Know Q39. Sometimes, a prime contractor will include a minority or woman subcontractor on a bid to meet the “good faith effort” requirement, then drop that company as a subcontractor after winning the award. _____ _____ _____ 1 Strongly Agree Agree 3 Neither Agree Nor Disagree 2 _____ _____ _____ 4 Disagree Strongly Disagree -9 No Answer/Don’t Know 5 Q40. In general, minority and women-owned businesses tend to be viewed by the general public as less competent than non-minority businesses. _____ _____ _____ 1 Strongly Agree Agree 3 Neither Agree Nor Disagree 2 _____ _____ _____ 4 Disagree Strongly Disagree -9 No Answer/Don’t Know 5 Q41. Some non-minority prime contractors change their bidding procedures when they are not required to hire minority and women-owned businesses as subcontractors. _____ _____ _____ 1 Strongly Agree 2 Agree 3 Neither Agree Nor Disagree _____ _____ _____ 4 Disagree Strongly Disagree -9 No Answer/Don’t Know 5 Page E-10 Appendix E: Telephone Survey of Area Businesses Q.42 Do you feel that there is favoritism or disparate treatment in the certification process? *****What certification process is this?******** _____ Yes ______ No _____ Don’t Know Q43. Have you experienced discriminatory behavior from ADOT in the past? _____ Yes ______ No _____ Don’t Know Q43a. If yes, how was the discrimination expressed to you: (READ LIST) 1 Verbal comment 3 Written statement 5 Action taken against company Q43b. Do you feel that the discrimination was due to: (READ LIST) 1 Owner’s race or ethnicity 2 Owner’s sex 3 Time in business Q43c. When did discrimination occur: (READ LIST) 1 During bidding process 2 After contract awarded 9 No answer Q43d. What action did you take? 1 Filed a complaint 2 No action taken If compliant filed, find out where. Q44. Have you experienced discriminatory behavior from the private sector in the past? _____ Yes ______ No _____ Don’t Know Q44a. If yes, how was the discrimination expressed to you: (READ LIST) 1 Verbal comment 3 Written statement 5 Action taken against company Q44b. Do you feel that the discrimination was due to: (READ LIST) 1 Owner’s race or ethnicity Owner’s sex 3 Time in business 2 Q44c. When did discrimination occur: (READ LIST) 1 During bidding process 2 After contract awarded 9 No answer/DK Page E-11 Appendix E: Telephone Survey of Area Businesses Q44d. What action did you take? 1 Filed a complaint 2 No action taken If compliant filed, find out where. ALL BUSINESSES Q45. Is there anything that we have not covered that you feel will be helpful to this study? Do you have any addition comments that you feel will be helpful to this study?  Yes  No Q45a. If yes, What are your comments?________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Q46. What is your title? Owner / CEO / President Manager / Financial Officer Q47. May I have your name or initials just in case we have any further questions? _______________________________________________ That completes the interview. Thank you for your time and help. Have a nice day. Page E-12 APPENDIX F: ANECDOTAL/PERSONAL INTERVIEWS GUIDE CODE ______ APPENDIX F: ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISPARITY STUDY ANECDOTAL/PERSONAL INTERVIEWS GUIDE INTERVIEWER: DATE: TIME: PLACE: CONTACT NAME: CONTACT TITLE: NAME OF COMPANY: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: TELEPHONE: FAX: E-MAIL: BUSINESS HOURS: ZIP: CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT Please read the following to interviewee. This interview is on behalf of the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). This interview is part of a comprehensive study of ADOT’s procurement of services and products. ADOT is committed to improving business with all their vendors. The questions we ask and your responses on your firm and industry are designed to provide us with information that can be used to improve business relationships with all vendors including small, minority, women, and non-minority businesses. Please understand that participation in this interview will not affect current or future contracts with ADOT. Responses to this questionnaire will be held in strict confidence, and will not be distributed to any other firm or person with your firm's identity revealed. However, in the case of a court order, all documentation will be turned over to the court. Page F-1 Rev. 08-06-07 Appendix F: Interview Guide ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISPARITY STUDY INTERVIEW GUIDE BUSINESS PROFILE 1. What is your company's primary line of business? [Try to get a good feel for what this company does.]  Construction Services (bridge, road, building, general contractor, etc.) (Specify) _________________________________________________________  Architecture/Engineering Professional Services (architecture, engineering, accountant, legal, etc.) (Specify) _________________________________________________________  Equipment and Supply (Specify) _________________________________________________________  Operational Services (Specify) _________________________________________________________  Other (specify) ____________________________________________ 1.a Are you in the same line of business as when you established your business? Yes_____ No_____ (Explain.) 2. What is the race or ethnic background of the owner/controlling party? [Get as much detail as possible.]    3. White African American (Black) Hispanic American Native American Asian American Other ______________________ What is the gender of the owner/controlling party? Male ____ Female ____ 4.    Joint male and female (50/50) _____ In what year was your business established or purchased from the most recent owner? _________________ 5. Is your company sole proprietor, partnership or corporation?    Sole proprietor  Partnership Corporation  Non-profit organization Other (Specify)________________________________ 5.a Does the company or do the owners maintain any special licensing? Yes______ No______ If so, specify. 6. Excluding owners, how many full-time and how many part-time employees does this firm have? _________ Full-time _________ Part-time/cyclical Page F-2 Rev. 08-06-07 Appendix F: Interview Guide 7. Excluding yourself, (if owner), on average, how many minority employees does your company have on the payroll, including full-time and part-time staff? _________ Full-time _________ Part-time/cyclical Provide minority employees by work classification Clerical/administrative_____________ Professional_____________ Managerial_______________ Technical_______________ Laborer________________ 8. Excluding yourself, (if owner), on average, how many male and female employees does your company keep on the payroll, including full-time and part-time staff? Male _________ Full-time _________ Part-time/cyclical Female _________ Full-time _________ Part-time/cyclical Provide male/female employees by work classification Male Clerical/administrative_____________ Professional_____________ Managerial_______________ Technical_______________ Laborer________________ Female Clerical/administrative_____________ Professional_____________ Managerial_______________ Technical_______________ Laborer________________ 9. What was your company’s approximate gross revenue for calendar year 2006? $____________________ If respondent does not provide an answer, then read following ranges for respondent to select one.     10. Less than $25,000 $25,001 to $50,000 $50,001 to $100,000 $100,001 to $300,000    $300,001 to $500,000 $500,001 to $1,000,000 $1,000,001 to $3,000,000     $3,000,001 to $5,000,000 $5,000,001 to $10,000,000 over $10,000,000 No Response What percentage of these gross revenues were earned from the private sector and the public (government) sector? (Must total 100%) ___ ___ ___% Private sector ___ ___ ___% Public (government) sector __________ Don’t Know Page F-3 Rev. 08-06-07 Appendix F: Interview Guide 11. What is the highest level of education completed by the owner of your company?  Some high school  High school graduate  Some college 12.     College graduate Post graduate degree Trade or technical education No Response How many years of direct experience does the primary owner of your firm have in the firm’s line of business?  No Response Years READ: This study is to capture information from fiscal years 1999 through 2006. The next set of questions I will ask refer to those time frames and concern your company’s attempts to do business with ADOT. CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITH ADOT AS A PRIME CONTRACTOR OR VENDOR 13. Have you ever bid on an ADOT project or provided a quote to ADOT for goods, services, equipment? Yes ____ No ____ (skip to 15) 13a. If prime has bid on a project: How many times have you bid as a prime? 1-10 ___ 11-25 ___ 26-50 ___ 51-100 ___ Over 100 ___ 13b. If prime has provided quotes: How many times have you provided quotes? 1-10 __ 11-25 ___ 14. 26-50 ___ 51-100 ___ Over 100 ___ What percentage of the time that you have bid on projects or provided quotes to ADOT have you been awarded a contract or a purchase order by ADOT? 14a. ______% (Should be between 0 and 100%) - Bids 14b. ______% (Should be between 0 and 100%) – Quotes 15. Are there any factors (such as prequalification, insurance bonding requirements, size of project) that have interfered with your ability to bid or provide a quote on ADOT procurements? Yes ___ No ____ If yes, please provide as much detail as possible. 16. Does ADOT have any practices or procedures that have prevented you from bidding or receiving any contracts or purchase orders? Yes ___ No ____ [Get details.] Page F-4 Rev. 08-06-07 Appendix F: Interview Guide 17. Has ADOT made any attempts to encourage you to bid on their procurements? Yes ___ No ___ If ‘yes’: describe their outreach efforts. If ‘no’: please indicate any outreach efforts you would like to see implemented. 18. Has ADOT been helpful when you have questions or need information about the procurement process? Yes_______ No _______ Not Applicable________ [Get details.] 18a. If yes, has the information provided by ADOT been timely and accurate? Yes______ No______ [Get details.] 19. Generally, are ADOT personnel courteous and responsive when you interact with them? (Probe for examples depending upon response.) 20. Has your company ever been treated unfairly in the selection process? Yes ___ No ____ [If yes, get examples!] 20a. Do you think ADOT favors some companies over others? Yes ___ No ___ [If yes, find out why!] 21. Generally, how fair do you think ADOT selection process is? 22. To the best of your knowledge, have you ever been the low bidder on ADOT project and not been awarded the contract or purchase order? Yes ____ No _____ [If yes, get details.] Page F-5 Rev. 08-06-07 Appendix F: Interview Guide 23. What factors would you say most frequently prevent you from winning ADOT contracts or purchase orders? [Get details.] 24. Have you ever appealed a contract or purchase order award with ADOT? Yes ____ No _____ [If yes, get details.] 25. Do you think your company will be retaliated against if you lodge a complaint with ADOT? Yes ___ No ____ 25a. 26. If so, why? What can ADOT do to improve the procurement and selection process? READ: The next questions are designed for firms that have served as a subcontractor to a prime contractor. 27. Have you ever served as a subcontractor on any ADOT projects? Yes ___ No ____ (If respondent answers NO, ask Question 27a and then skip to Question 29.) 27a. Are there any factors (such as bonding, insurance, subcontractor registration, lack of information or financing) that prevent your firm from serving as a subcontractor on ADOT projects? Yes ____ No ____ [Get details.] Page F-6 Rev. 08-06-07 Appendix F: Interview Guide CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITH ADOT AS A SUBCONTRACTOR 28. How many times have you served as a subcontractor on an ADOT project? 1-10 ____ 29. 11-25 ___ 26-50 ___ 51-100 ___ Over 100 ____ Have you ever been informed that you were low bidder, awarded a contract, and then found out that another subcontractor or the prime was performing the work? Yes ____ No ____ 29a. If yes, explain. 29b. What action did you take? 30. Do prime contractors show any favoritism toward particular subcontractors when it comes to procuring services and products for an ADOT project? Yes ____ No ____ 30a. If yes, explain. The next set of questions are designed for firms that are minority or woman-owned. If the respondent is not an M/WBE, skip to Question 41. MINORITY AND WOMAN-OWNED BUSINESSES 31. Are you certified as a small, minority-, woman-, disadvantaged- owned business? If yes, with whom? 32. Do you think certification has an effect on the ability of your company to compete with other businesses? Why or why not? Page F-7 Rev. 08-06-07 Appendix F: Interview Guide 33. Are you aware of any practices that prime contractors use to get around having to use small, minority, woman-owned or disadvantaged businesses? Describe. 34. Do you notice any difference in the willingness of primes to use small, minority, woman-owned or disadvantaged businesses? Describe. 35. Do you notice any differences in the willingness of primes to use small, minority, or woman-owned businesses in the public and private sector? If so, explain the differences. 36. Do you think primes would use small, minority, woman-owned or disadvantaged businesses if there were no DBE or M/WBE goals? Why or why not? 37. What are the biggest obstacles faced by small, minority, or woman-owned businesses? Elaborate. Page F-8 Rev. 08-06-07 Appendix F: Interview Guide 38. Have you experienced discriminatory behavior from ADOT in the past five years?  Yes  No skip to 39  DK skip to 39 38a. If yes, how was the discrimination expressed to you: (READ LIST) 1 Verbal comment Written statement 5 Action taken against company 3 38b. Do you feel that the discrimination was due to: (READ LIST) 1 Owner’s race or ethnicity Owner’s sex 3 Time in business 2 38c. When did discrimination occur: (READ LIST) 1 During bidding process After contract awarded 9 No answer 2 38d. What action did you take? 1 Filed a complaint 2 No action taken If compliant filed, find out where 39. Have you experienced discriminatory behavior from other public organizations in the past five years? Elaborate. 40. Have you experienced discriminatory behavior from the private sector in the past five years?  Yes  No skip to 41  DK skip to 41 40a. If yes, how was the discrimination expressed to you: (READ LIST) 1 Verbal comment 3 Written statement 5 Action taken against company 40b. Do you feel that the discrimination was due to: (READ LIST) 1 Owner’s race or ethnicity Owner’s sex 3 Time in business 2 40c. When did discrimination occur: (READ LIST) 1 During bidding process After contract awarded 9 No answer/DK 2 40d. What action did you take? 1 2 Filed a complaint No action taken If complaint filed, find out where Page F-9 Rev. 08-06-07 Appendix F: Interview Guide The next set of questions is designed for non-minority male-owned businesses. (If respondent is not a white male, skip to Question #47) NON-MINORITY MALE-OWNED BUSINESSES 41. Do you think your company has ever suffered from reverse discrimination? If so, can you provide any details? 42. Do you think the ability of small, minority, woman-owned or disadvantaged businesses to get certified by ADOT gives them a competitive advantage? Why or why not? 43. Are you aware of any practices that prime contractors use to get around having to use small, minority, woman-owned or disadvantaged businesses? Describe. 44. Do you notice any differences in the willingness of primes to use small, minority, or woman-owned businesses in the public and private sector? If so, explain the differences. 45. What are the biggest obstacles faced by your firm in conducting business with ADOT? Page F-10 Rev. 08-06-07 Appendix F: Interview Guide 46. Do you think small, minority, woman-owned or disadvantaged businesses face challenges not faced by white male-owned businesses? If so, what. The final two questions are designed for each business owner. FINAL QUESTIONS – ALL FIRMS 47. Do you feel there is an informal network that gives an advantage to select businesses?  Yes  No If yes, how does it operate in ADOT? 48. Is there anything that we have not covered that you feel will be helpful to this study?  Yes  No If yes, ask what? Page F-11 Rev. 08-06-07 Appendix F: Interview Guide AFFIDAVIT HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE TESTIMONY I GAVE IS TRUE AND AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF MY PAST EXPERIENCES IN PROCUREMENT AND BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES WITH THE STATE OF ARIZONA. ADDITIONALLY, THIS TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN FREELY AND I HAVE NOT BEEN COERCED OR RECEIVED ANY REMUNERATION FOR MY COMMENTS. _____________________________________________ SIGNATURE _________________________ DATE _____________________________________________ SIGNATURE OF INTERVIEWER AS WITNESS _________________________ DATE Page F-12 Rev. 08-06-07 APPENDIX G: FOCUS GROUP GUIDE APPENDIX G: State of Arizona Department of Transportation Disparity Study Focus Group Guide Interviewer: Date: Time: Place: Group: Hello and thank you for coming to this focus group to provide input that will be used as a part of a comprehensive study of ADOT’s procurement of services and products. My name is ____________ and I am a local subconsultant hired by MGT of America, Inc. We have been asked to gather opinions from business owners about the business climate in the State of Arizona. We are looking to obtain information on your experiences if any, when attempting to do business ADOT. I thought we might begin with introductions. Why don’t you start and we will work around the room (name, what kind of work you do, and anything else you’d like us to know about you). We are very glad that you are all here and appreciate you taking time out of your busy day to participate in this meeting. We are going to be taking notes throughout the session. In addition, we would like to record this session if there are no objections. Responses to this questionnaire will be held in strict confidence, and will not be distributed to any other firm or person with your firm's identity revealed. However, in the case of a court order, all documentation will be turned over to the court. The Process The recordings and notes of these focus groups will only be reviewed by ____________ and MGT staff. We will use the information to summarize the discussions that took place during these focus groups. Individual names will not be identified nor will remarks or comments be attributed to a specific individual. Once all of the analysis for the focus groups is completed, the results will be aggregated and will be incorporated with other data from this phase of the study. These findings will be used in reviewing ADOT’s procurement practices and the procurement environment of ADOT. We hope that everyone feels free to participate and to add as much insight as possible. We have ample time, so feel free to contribute to the discussion as we go along. Page 1 of 3 Appendix G: Focus Group Guide A. Welcome and brief background about the purpose of focus groups (see above).  Introductions – have each participate state:  Name  Company’s primary line of business  Certification status (if applicable)  Years in business Be sure to note ethnic group, gender, and certification status (if applicable). This can be noted on the sign-in sheet. B. B. Key Point to Discuss  This is an open discussion involving all to participate. Goal is to have everyone participate in the discussion.  Encourage participants to express thoughts and opinions freely.  Stress that the intent is to focus on issues related to contracting (such as construction, construction related services – architecture, engineering, professional services, operational services, and goods) and the business climate in the State of Arizona.  Individuals and participants will not be identified by name when providing feedback and findings to ADOT staff. Facilitation Logistics  Facilitators: The facilitator has primary responsibility for working with the group to solicit responses to questions.  Facilitation Time: Approximately 1½ hours.  Major Issues will be recorded by tape recorder (if there are no objections), personal notes, and flipchart pages.  Date, Time, and Location: To be determined  Materials Needed: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. C. Flip Chart or Easel Paper Focus Group Guide (attached) List of Participants (sign-in sheet to be provided) Markers Audio Recorder Discussion  Establish Scope: We are going to discuss several items at this point. Our primary goal is to discuss your (local area business owners) opinions about the business climate in the State of Arizona. Page 2 of 3 Appendix G: Focus Group Guide 1. Please discuss how you get information about ADOT procurement opportunities (such as, ADOT’s website, govcontracts.com, networking/word-of-mouth, etc). Is this information helpful? 2. If you have been awarded a contract with ADOT, on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 being Extremely Positive to 2 being Extremely Negative), rate your experience in doing business with the ADOT as a contractor. Be sure that the responses identify their experience (such as the name of the project, type of project, type of contractor (prime, subcontractor) etc.). Also, be sure that the respondent explains the reason for his/her rating. 3. How could ADOT improve its procurement system to enable businesses to participate more effectively on ADOT federal and state funded projects ? Be sure to specify ADOT federally or state-funded projects. 4. On a scale from 1 to 5 (1 being Extremely Positive to 2 being Extremely Negative), rate your experience in doing business as a contractor, vendor as a subcontractor on ADOT projects. Be sure that the responses identify whether they are referring to a contractor or first tier subcontractor, also request specifics about the project (project name, type of project, time period of project). Also, be sure that the respondent explains the reason for his/her rating. 5. On a scale from 1 to 5 (1 being Extremely Positive to 2 being Extremely Negative), rate your experience in contracting with other local government agencies or the private sector. Be sure that the responses identify their experience (such as the name of the entity, type of project, etc.). Also, be sure that the respondent explains the reason for his/her rating. 6. In the past five years, how much of your contracts have come from ADOT federally- or state-funded projects? General Contractors? Other Public Entities? From your own networks? 7. What do you feel most interferes with your ability to do business with the ADOT on ADOT federal and ADOT state-funded projects (barriers of doing business, such as prequalification, licensing, labor agreements, financing, bond requirements, etc.)? Be sure that they specify ADOT federally-funded projects or ADOT state-funded projects. 8. What policies or practices do you think the ADOT should adopt to assist a company with doing more business with the ADOT (ADOT federally-funded projects) ADOT’s statefunded projects)? 9. Please discuss your understanding of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE). Do you feel the services provided by the ADOT through this Program to be helpful? Please explain. 10. Please provide your opinion on the certification process. How could the certification process for doing business with the ADOT be improved? 11. In the past five (5) years, what have been some of the important partnerships that you have had with contractors or subcontractors on public and private projects? 12. What business assistance services provided by the ADOT have you used? Did you find them helpful? Please explain. Page 3 of 3 APPENDIX H: PUBLIC HEARING ADVERTISEMENT APPENDIX H: ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISPARITY STUDY ARIZONA PUBLIC HEARING ADVERTISEMENT PUBLIC HEARING The Arizona Department of Transportation (DOT) announces a Public Hearing to be held in: Phoenix Day, Date Location The public is invited to attend and participate by giving testimony. If you are a business owner and have tried to contract with the Arizona DOT or a prime contractor working on behalf of the Arizona DOT in the last six years, the Arizona DOT would like to know about your experiences. Personal testimony will be limited to five minutes. If you need a special accommodation, please notify _______ at _______________ (phone), at least 72 hours prior to the date of the hearing. Page H-1 Rev. 08-06-07 APPENDIX I: PUBLIC HEARING OVERVIEW FORMAT APPENDIX I: PUBLIC HEARING OVERVIEW FORMAT The following provides an overview of the format which will be followed for the public hearing.  The major purpose hearing is to give individuals an opportunity to provide public testimony regarding their experiences in doing business with the Arizona Department of Transportation. Persons providing testimony need to be very specific and descriptive about what they have experienced.  The moderator, _____________________, a subcontractor to MGT of America, Inc. (MGT), will formally open the public hearing by stating for the record something similar to the following: This public hearing is being conducted on behalf __________. __________ is soliciting public testimony related to experiences attempting to do, and conducting, business with the any of the departments of __________. This public hearing is in conjunction with the business utilization study being conducted by __________.  The moderator, _______________, a subcontractor to MGT, will formally open the public hearing by stating for the record something similar to the following:  _________ (moderator) will introduce herself and indicate her role, and then introduce the hearing panel (which will be provided).  The moderator will remind all those attending to sign the sign-in sheet if they have not done so. For those persons providing testimony, the moderator will remind them to fill out a testimony card at the reception desk and return to one of the hostesses. The card will then be handed to the moderator.  Individuals should state their name, the name of their business, how long they have been in business, and if they are certified with any agency.  No more than five (5) minutes per person will be allowed for each testimony. No more than another five (5) minutes for questions and answers will be allowed after each testimony is given.  For those persons who feel they have additional comments they wish to address, the moderator will encourage them to provide something in writing or contact the study team.  With respect to questions, the moderator will ask questions specific to situations and issues that particular contractors or vendors have raised. In general, the kinds of questions which will be asked will be forthcoming. Page I-1 Rev. 08-06-07